Is Nate Jones a fraud?

While we eagerly await Judge Feinberg's decision on the validity of Nathaniel M. Jones, Jr's appointment as Municipal Court Director for the city of Trenton, you might want to review the following material.

First up, Mr. Jones' resume as furnished upon request by the city of Trenton.

On that resume, Mr. Jones lists both bachelor and juris doctorate degrees from Howard University in Washington, DC.

A search done via the National Student Clearinghouse online service revealed the following fact about Mr. Jones:

Name On School's Records:		NATHANIEL M JONES
Date Awarded:		N/A
Degree Title:		No Degree -- Enrollment Only
Official Name of School:		HOWARD UNIVERSITY
Major Course(s) of Study:		POLITICAL SCIENCE
Dates of Attendance:		08/21/1978 to 05/08/1981

Assuming this information is correct...it indicates that Mr. Jones incorporated some untruths on his resume.

Also on the resume, Mr. Jones states that he was admitted to the Bar in Pennsylvania. 

This was apparently true.  But he doesn't mention that in 1995, his name appeared on the list of attorneys tranasferred to inactive status by order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and its Disciplinary Committee. (see page 11 of the listing).

While nothing in the NJ Civil Service title description of Court Director specifies that a law degree be required, it certainly appears as though Mr. Jones might have fudged the point of his qualifications.

The fact that the Mack administration doesn't seem bothered about this lapse in truthfulness on the part of an appointee is somewhat indicative if the Mayor's lax approach to ethics.

Jones should be removed and made to repay all the salary he has collected since his appointment.

Mack should be recalled.

State of the City

We’ve been tempted to draft a lengthy dissection of Mayor Mack’s State of the City Address but hesitated. Fortunately, Dan Dodson was on it immediately and posted a thoughtful response on his blog.


Sometimes, procrastination pays off.

At tonight’s city council meeting, that pay off came. Sort of.

Resolution 11-157 was the extension of the information technology (IT) consulting contract with ADPC. This is the contract that an RFP was issued for last fall and that resulted in the controversial and faulty hiring of an unqualified vendor, Lynx Technology Partners.

ADPC, who has provided this service to the city for over 20 years, took the matter to court and prevailed.

In an order issued on March 11, Judge Feinberg determined that the RFP process would need to be rebid and that ADPC would continue under the terms of the current contract until June 30, 2011.

Tonight’s resolution was presented on the docket this way:

11-157 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE CONTRACT WITH ASSOCIATED DATA PROCESS CONSULTANTS, INC. (ADPC), 116 VILLAGE BLVD, SUITE 200, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TRENTON, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (not to exceed $319,2000 term March 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011)

According to a report posted by Bob Chilson on his blog, when the resolution came up for a vote, it failed to pass.

Councilwoman Holly-Ward asked the City Attorney, Marc McKithen, if there was any paperwork to back up the resolution. McKithen reportedly stated he didn’t have anything.

Council voted 5-2 against the resolution. The two members who voted in favor of the resolution, Council President Muschal and Councilwoman Caldwell-Wilson, were the only two to vote against awarding the IT contract to Lynx technologies in the first place. It is pretty obvious that they are paying attention.

It is hard to say what is more disappointing in this matter…the complete lack of understanding on the part of five city council members as to what the judge ordered or McKithen’s apparent refusal to offer a proper and thorough explanation of the matter so they could vote intelligently.

At best, we have a situation where the ignorance and incompetence of a majority on our governing body is compounded by the willful contempt demonstrated by the city attorney and the rest of the Mack administration.

That, friends, is the real state of the city. It is not "well."

No matter how you slice it

In this case, Justice wears a blindfold out of shame.

Superior Court Judge Feinberg has cleared Trenton Municipal Judge Renee Lamarre Sumners to return to the bench after a one week suspension.

City Council has voted, six to one, in favor having Judge Sumners resign.

Mayor Tony Mack seems to be taking the approach of wiping his hands clean of the mess his appointment turned into.

Trenton suffers another hit on its image.

When you analyze the situation, here's what you have:

Sumners is an attorney with a history of twice having her license suspended (2004 and 2006) for non-payment into a state fund.

Either she doesn't have the money, is a poor money manager, or feels she is above the law.

If she doesn't have the money, we have to wonder why.  She's an attorney.  If she's not making money at her chosen profession is it because she is taking work that doesn't pay or is she not working enough?  Just how good of an attorney is she?

If she is working hard, and a lot, but still doesn't have any money to pay the required fee ($258 was the amount I believe) than maybe she is a poor money manager. 

We'll concede that keeping a balanced check book is not every one's favorite pastime.  But the woman holds herself out to be a professional; someone with advanced and specialized training in a line of work that requires her to be able to analyze and reason through problems.  Like keeping track of her finances and meeting her responsibilities. 

If she can't manage her finances and doesn't realize she needs to find someone who can than we have to question her ability to analyze and reason her way through the problem.  If she can't comprehend that this is a problem after twice having her license to practice suspended, then we might infer her skill set is not up to the standards of her chosen profession.

Now we look at the fact that Sumners bounced two checks paying the dues this year.  If she knowingly wrote bad checks, it's criminal.  If it was due to an inability to keep a checkbook, she's incompetent.  If she just doesn't care, she's arrogant.  None of the three are good traits in any line of work...especially so in the practice of law.

And then there is the issue of unpaid income taxes. Reports indicate that Sumners and her husband owe $15,808 from 2003 and 2006.  Why?  Was they money there but they didn't feel they needed to pay?  Did they screw up their tax returns?  Or was there no money?  Didn't they both have jobs?  They must have had income if they owed taxes?

This brings into question Judge Sumners' approach to meeting her legal responsibilities.  Did she think she didn't have to pay?  Did she place herself above the law?

Then there is the matter of the unpaid credit card bill.  Seems Judge Sumners owed $2214.22 on a credit card from 2008.  The creditor filed and received a judgement against Sumners in December of 2009 and Sumners received the notice to pay in January of this year.  She failed to return the paperwork, the creditor filed a civil action complaint and a bench warrant for Sumners arrest was issued on September 29.

Um, she's an attorney by trade. Right?  She should know better.  Right? 

Judge Sumners is the cause of her problems.  Through ignorance and arrogance, she has demonstrated quite plainly that she is incapable of serving as a judge. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court decides ethics cases.  This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing as it can somewhat mitigate politics from influencing the tenure of a judge.  Only the Supreme Court can remove a judge from the bench.

Unfortunately the State of New Jersey seems to have a fairly liberal interpretation of what constitutes ethical behavior by attorneys. Sanctions in ethics cases more often result in suspensions than removals or disbarment's.

In layman terms: Judge Sumners would need to be found with a smoking gun in her hand, standing over the still warm body of her victim before she is likely to be sanctioned for breach of ethics. Even then she'd probably only get what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

The fact that once a judge takes the oath only the state supreme court can remove her might explain another little piece of this puzzle. 

On the night that Mayor Mack convinced six members of council to approve the appointment by lying about Sumners having completed a background check the would be judge and family were present.  Upon being confirmed by city council, Sumners immediately sought out Superior Court Judge Paulette Sapp-Peterson to be sworn in.

Hmm.  If it's so difficult to remove a judge once he or she has taken the oath and a newly appointed judges has some questionable baggage, why not hurry up and get sworn in. Maybe she's not so incompetent after all.

Sumners needs to resign.  Period. 

A few thoughts on residency

It is not about the person, it is about the law…and the benefits to the city.
Prior to Judge Feinberg handing in her decision in the Santiago case, there was a lot of back and forth about the policy of granting residency waivers to select individuals employed by the city.

Some people insist that residency requirements should be done away with completely. They don’t feel it matters in the least where anyone who works for the city lives.

Others say waivers should be allowed in certain circumstances.

One phrase we hear often in these arguments is that “we need the best person for the job, not the best person who will reside here to take the job.”

That just doesn’t make sense and here’s why:

If residency is a requirement for the job and a candidate is not willing or able to meet that requirement, then simple logic dictates they are not the best candidate for the job.

It makes you wonder what these “we don’t need residency requirements” folks think of the people who have voluntarily chosen to reside here in Trenton. If “the best” won’t relocate here, are those of us who have second rate? Isn’t that a slap in the face of the many, residency-law-abiding city employees?

Let’s make something else perfectly clear: residency requirements were enacted by the people of this city to help mitigate the loss of the middle class (and above) residents to the surrounding area. The idea was to maintain a resident base of people who could support the economy of the city by earning and spending their money here.

It’s interesting to note that the Palmer Administration’s policy of “selective enforcement” of the residency ordinance has coincided with an increasing amount of Trenton tax dollars flowing out of the city in the form of paychecks and professional service contract payments to non-residents.

Just look at the city law department. There was a time when the City Attorney and staff handle the vast majority if not all of the city’s legal work. The members of the department were required to live in the city from which they drew their paychecks. They paid taxes on their homes here; they patronized the restaurants, stores and movie theatres (remember them?) here. The dollars stayed in circulation in town. Business was supported; jobs were supported so more people could earn a living wage.

A picture of the law department today tells a completely different story. We have a City Attorney (I believe it may be a statutory requirement). But we also have the highly compensated “Special Counsel” who is essentially a non-resident contract employee. We also regularly retain several other outside attorneys to handle labor cases and contract negotiations; defense for the many damage and injury claims that are filed against the city (take a look at a council docket sometime), most from outside of the City.

In this most recent example of the residency waiver challenge, only the citizen plaintiff’s had local representation. City Council, the Mayor, Director Santiago and corporate entity of the City of Trenton all had separate legal representation and all were from out of the area.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees paid by the city each year to contract out services to providers who don’t live in the city.

Why not make sure we had an adequately staffed, professionally capable law department comprised of city residents. Then the wages paid would have at least half a chance of staying within the community and doing good where it is needed most (rather than Cherry Hill, or Livingston or Keyport etc.

Our so-called leaders tell us repeatedly of the need to attract people with expendable income to reside here; seek entertainment here; shop here; dine here.

And then they contradict themselves by giving money by the wheelbarrow load, not to mention cars, cell phones, etc., to outside attorneys, “gang” consultants, and the like.

Trenton will continue to suffer until and unless those who have been elected to office are held accountable.

Residency is one tool by which we can do that.

Doing away with it, amending it, waiving will only exacerbate our problems.

But what about the horses?

TRENTON'S MAYOR CLAIMS IT IS ALL ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY

Setting aside the fact that he acted in violation of the City's residency ordinance by granting a residency waiver to Police Director Santiago, the Mayor claimed that the Feinberg ruling is jeopardizing the public safety of Trenton residents.

Right.

The loss of experienced, dedicated professionals under Santiago's heavy handed management didn't jeopardize our public safety?

The ever-increasing police overtime budgets for the first four years of Santiago's tenure that resulted in a physically and emotionally exhausted police force didn't jeopardize public safety?

And what about the money spent on worthless video surveillance cameras, redesigned badges, and multiple numbers of high-end vehicles for Santiago cronies to drive to and from work (while our street cops and detectives had to "make do" with an aging and decrepit fleet)? Did any of that improve public safety?

Let's not forget the money wasted on the mounted patrol units. Yes, they look pretty standing around on the street corners downtown on a nice day, but what about the cost of stabling, feeding, transporting, providing veterinary care? This improved public safety how?

The Mayor needs to drop any and all thoughts of appealing Feinberg's decision.

He needs to bid farewell to Joe Santiago (and Irv Bradley), and get back to running this city FOR THE PEOPLE!

If he's not willing to do that, then let's put him and Santiago each on one of those horses and send them off on their respective journey to their homes in the north lands.

With the two of them out of the way maybe we can start to feel safe again.