What in the hell was Mr. Irwin Stoolmacher thinking when he included the following line in his op ed about Trenton's Mayoral race that appeared in the Friday's Times:
Any Trenton citizen who hasn't questioned the accountability, ethics and/or transparency of the current administration just hasn't been paying attention."Trenton politics is not seen by its citizens as corrupt."
Why else would citizens have had to sue to get the administration to enforce its own residency ordinance?
Who else but a corrupt administration would hide their own salary increases in a resolution accepting a contract with one of the city employee unions, again forcing the citizens to take legal action?
Wouldn't a corrupt administration be likely to play favorites amongst developers and contractors, especially those who make sizable campaign contributions (pre-Pay to Play ordinance---which, by the way, the administration fought against)?
What's worse than Mr. Stoolmacher's assertion that this administration is not "seen by its citizen's as corrupt" is the comparison of Mr. Palmer's way of doing business with that of the late Art Holland.
We're not suggesting that Mayor Holland was pefect during his tenure as the city's CEO. But no one can question his integrity. The man was "open and fair" long before that became a catch phrase.
Mr. Palmer's tenure, on the other hand, has been marked by repeated examples of administrative sleights of hand that raise many questions about ethics and legalities.
We suggest that Mr. Stoolmacher revisit his thinking on the issue of a corrupt Trenton political seen. Or at least revisit his physician to have his medications adjusted.