Council Moves Pay-to-Play Measure

In a surprising move by Gloucester Township Council, the governing body introduced and unanimously approved a measure Monday night that, if approved, would strengthen the town's controls on so-called pay-to-play activities.

The ordinance likely will be considered for final approval at Council's next public-action meeting, which is scheduled for July 23, at which time a public hearing will be conducted.

Councilman Dan Hutchison reportedly asked his colleagues to consider the measure last week during a workshop meeting.

"This ordinance should be acted upon," he said Monday night. "Something should be done (about pay to play)."

The ordinance differs from one proposed by conservative watchdog group South Jersey Citizens in that it would require government contractors to disclose contributions to so-called super political action committees, or "Super PACs."

Unlike the SJC measure, it does not close what SJC political director Josh Berry referred to Monday as the "fair and open loophole."

The ordinance essentially contains the same contribution limits as SJC's proposed ordinance.

"Pay to play" is the phrase used to describe campaign contributors being awarded government contracts by the officials they help get elected.

Berry, the SJC political director, called the ordinance a "watered-down version" of the measure he and fellow SJC members have been attempting to enact through the Faulkner Act's initiative process since last summer.

"My concern is not a single dollar will stop flowing. It's not going to stop anything," he said.

Solicitor David Carlamere indicated Monday that he distributed a copy of the ordinance to Council's seven members Sunday for their review.

Hutchison told Berry he agrees with SJC on the need for pay-to-play reform, but his biggest concern was the watchdog group's proposed ordinance did not address super PACs.

"I expressed to you one of my main concerns was the 'Super PACs' and trying to bring those donors out into the open," the councilman said. "And I believe this ordinance accomplishes that very important thing."

"Super PACs" cannot make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but are allowed to spend as much as they like, independent of campaigns, to support or oppose candidates. Also, unlike traditional PACs, "Super PACs" can raise funds from corporations, unions and individuals without legal limits.

Hutchison indicated he does not believe SJC's ordinance, as written, was going to make it to the ballot this November, given a series of legal issues raised by Carlamere during a Superior Court hearing last month regarding signatures collected during the group's petition drive advocating for the reform measure.

Those legal issues were made public after SJC in April sued Clerk Rosemary DiJosie for not certifying its petition.

A hearing is scheduled for this morning before Superior Court Judge Louis R. Meloni to address the township's concerns over a series of affidavits alleging misconduct on the part of the five-member petition committee.

"I was very troubled by the allegations in some of the papers that were filed with the court," Hutchison said. "It's my understanding that's not going to make it on the ballot this year, and that's troubling."

Berry responded that there still is a "good and real chance" the SJC ordinance will make it onto the November ballot. He also refuted Hutchison's assertion that petitions were intentionally presented to residents in another form, as one of five affiants swore under oath.

New Jersey Comptroller Matthew Boxer has been advocating for state legislators to eliminate the fair-and-open provision of the state's pay-to-pay law since last September, when he released a 20-page report on the state's 2004 law governing campaign contributions.

The report states local governments have been able to award contracts to any vendor—regardless of how much money those vendors or their employees contribute to candidates—as long as they use a fair-and-open decision-making process. The problem, according to Boxer, is the definition of "fair and open" is too vague.