| Author |
Message |
    
Two Senses
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 415
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 8:10 pm: | 
|
With Maplewood adopting a stringent anti-pay-to-play ordinance, where does South Orange stand on this matter? According the News Record, any individual or firm contributing as little as $1 in the prior 12 months to any municipal candidate or party will be banned from doing business with Maplewood.
Since none of South Orange's vendors or developers ever would have had any reason to contribute to our elected officials' or their endorsed candidates' election campaigns, the BoT very well may conclude there's no need to consider an anti-pay-to-play ordinance in S.O. Who knows, we even may have entirely dodged the touchy subject of pay-to-play in New Jersey politics and government.
|
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 589
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
 |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2484
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Even if they ban payments to township candidates, South Orange cannot ban payments to county officials or other people with an "interest" in what happens in town. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 7:04 am: |
|
Your point?
jd |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2485
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
My point is that, hypothetically, if a township official also works for a county or state official who is running for election. And if they, hypothetically, are able to raise funds for their "other" employer" by using their position in town. Then they would not be in violation of a town ordinance, yet they would essentially be doing pay to play by making hte "pay" part of it outside the scope of a township law. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Another great issue to address, but certainly this one is worthy of enactment too. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
If you read the thread, "Trustee Meeting Agenda questions", it appears there may be a pay-to- play issue related to the Tony Smith sculpture.
It needs to be determined whether those advocating that the public should pay several $100,000 for it are strong supporters, either monetarily or otherwise, of trustees who voted to authorize the village president sign a contract to purchase a copy of the sculpture from a fabricator.
Howard Levison has filed an OPRA request to obtain any contract, if one exists. The town has not yet responded to it. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page