We're (still) waiting

On February 7, 2014, Trenton’s then mayor, Tony Mack, was found guilty of six federal counts of corruption. Due to a quirk in New Jersey state law, Mack was able to hold onto his office for nearly three more weeks until Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson heard a motion brought by acting State Attorney General John Hoffman. 

Indeed, Mack had actually continued in office for a year and half after the FBI had raided his home and city hall; 16 months after he was officially arrested and charged; and 14 months after he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury.

On February 21, 2014, the Times of Trenton ran a guest Op Ed by Jim Carlucciand Kevin Moriarty.

In that piece, they wrote:

“Mack’s criminal odyssey highlights critical problems with New Jersey law that the Legislature must address if other communities — or the state as a whole — are to avoid an experience similar to Trenton’s and retain trust in their public officials.”

“Public officials need to be reminded that if they act appropriately and conduct themselves ethically, they won’t find themselves indicted or convicted.”

The writers understand that, as Americans, we are innocent until proven guilty. They also argue that, “without making pre-judgments about guilt or innocence, it can be safely said a criminal indictment, at best, is a major distraction to the execution of an official’s duties.”

To date, nothing has been done to change the law in New Jersey that allows these indicted officials from continuing in office.



Many saw where the Mack administration was heading simply by reviewing his election reports. In fact, there are still open “reviews” of his reports even while he is currently a resident of a federal prison.

The February Op-Ed included a recommendation to increase the resources of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission so they could better stay on top of the questionable practices too often employed in the state’s political theater.

“Illuminating and correcting wrongdoing on the campaign trail could help reduce the number of indicted officials down the road. The Legislature needs to allocate more resources to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. Regular users of the ELEC website know that it is down as much as it is up. The problems, reported in the minutes of the November 2013 meeting of the commission, are an outdated and overtaxed computer system and a lack of funds to make the necessary upgrades.”

This matter has come to light again with recent questions about potential violations of the city of Trenton’s Pay-to-Play ordinance by contributors to newly elected mayor Eric Jackson’s campaign.

 

On March 10th, 2014 Moriarty blogged about Jackson’s long overdue reporting on the 2010 campaign for Mayor. In a follow up piece from April 22  Moriarty noted that Jackson had updated some of his reports but raised some other questions about excessive contributions from former senator Robert Torricelli. On June 3 and yet again this month on August 4,  August 5,  and August 7, Jackson's campaign reporting was called into question on Moriarty's blog. 

Picking up where Moriarty left off, none other than Jeffrey Brindle, theExecutive Director of NJ ELEC has stated that the state needs to clarify,simplify and standardize its Pay-to-Play laws. 

The legislative response to all of this has been…crickets.

Another point made in the February Op-Ed by Carlucci and Moriarty was the need to rework the recall process in the state.

“A practical and effective recall process will allow New Jersey voters to exercise greater control over elected officials and must be considered a weapon to fight future public corruption.”

The legislature needs to take a serious look at these issues and pass amendments to our current laws that will eliminate the “wiggle room” that allows corruption to continue.  Yes, some have made noise about this but nothing has gotten any traction.

Again quoting the February Op-Ed:

“In 2012, Assemblymen Wayne DeAngelo and Dan Benson introduced a bill which would automatically suspend, without pay, public officials upon indictment. If convicted, the official forfeits his or her office, pay and pension credits from date of indictment. If found not guilty, the official would be reinstated, and back pay and pension would be granted upon successful petition. State Sen. Linda Greenstein followed with a companion bill. The assemblymen pre-filed their bill for the new legislative term (A1024).”

“In October 2012, Sen. Shirley Turner proposed amending the state constitution to achieve the same goal. Nothing has become of that.”

“Assemblyman Reed Gusciora has stated he will seek to change state law to allow automatic forfeiture of political office upon criminal conviction, regardless of where the conviction occurs.”

The people of New Jersey are still waiting. 

Nothing was delivered

Nothing was delivered
And I tell this truth to you,
Not out of spite or anger
But simply because it's true.

Now, I hope you won't object to this,

Giving back all of what you owe,
The fewer words you have to waste on this,
The sooner you can go.

That pretty much sums up last night's city council meeting.

The anticipated appearance of secretary to the mayor Anthony Roberts to answer questions about the President Obama bust didn't happen.

It seems as though (per Council President Holly-Ward) Mr. Roberts never acknowledged the council's invitation to appear. Nor did Roberts acknowledge the Business Administrator's inquiries about whether he would appear.

And then the secretary to the mayor "called off sick."

Nothing is better, nothing is best,

Take care of yourself and get plenty of rest.

No opportunity to explain how contributions were solicited; how the foundry (in St. Louis) was chosen; who gave the secretary to the mayor the authority to approve a purchase order for the base. 

Nothing was delivered

But I can't say I sympathize
With what your fate is going to be,
Yes, for telling all those lies.

The other big draw tonight was the introduction of a (revised) ordinance to reduce the mayor's salary.

Now you must provide some answers

For what you sold has not been received,
And the sooner you come up with them,
The sooner you can leave.

 

As you will recall, the last attempt was stymied when East Ward Councilwoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, who voted in favor of the ordinance the first time, voted against it at second reading and against an override of the mayor's veto.

Reynolds-Jackson's arguments were a mishmash of things and she kept saying it needed to be reworked to clarify the language. She cited state Senator Shirley Turner's public comments AND introduction of a motion to amend the NJ constitution to call for the suspension of pay for indicted officials.

Although the East Ward representative never came forward with any revisions of her own, the ordinance was reworked to reflect her concerns and directly quotes Senator Turner.  Reynolds-Jackson still voted against the new version.

Nothing is better, nothing is best,

Take heed of this and get plenty rest. (Now you know)

The regular business of council was the review and adoption of the items on tonight's docket.

The purpose of docket review is to go over the items before the governing body. That is the time when questions are asked, explanations given (by the administration) so that the council members understand what they are acting on and why it is before them.

It has been a hallmark of the Mack administration, through all of the BA's, the short tenure of the Chief of Staff, and the various and sundry acting department heads, that there is seldom anyone present to offer explanations or illuminations to council on docket items. Without proper back up and/or explanations, there is no reason for council to act. This is how things are let go until the last possible moment. Or later.

This is how the city runs out of toilet paper.

Tonight, yet again, there was no one present to answer any questions that the governing body might have. No one, that is, except for Superintendent of the Sewer Authority Joe McIntyre.

Three items were pulled from the docket because there was no one present to answer questions. Three items that will be postponed until...?

Nothing was delivered

And it's up to you to say
Just what you had in mind
When you made ev'rybody pay.

One of the items pulled was a change order to an existing contract with Hatch Mott MacDonald.  HMD is listed as a contributor to the Obama bust. There are two other companies currently doing business with the city that are listed as contributors.

Councilman Zac Chester raised the question of whether these donations towards the bust violate the city's Pay-to-Play ordinance. He had asked this last month and had not received an answer. Tonight he was told by attorney Peter Cohen that the matter had not yet been reviewed.

No, nothing was delivered,

Yes, 'n' someone must explain
That as long as it takes to do this
Then that's how long that you'll remain.
 
The question was put to us earlier, "Just what did council accomplish last night?"

As with so many meetings over the past two and a half years, the bare minimum was done.

Nothing is better, nothing is best,

Take heed of this and get plenty rest.

Remember this guy?

Remember back last summer when Mayor Mack wanted to appoint Andrew Weber the Business Administrator for the City of Trenton?  You know, after Bill Guhl un-volunteered himself and before Andrew McCrosson (later to resign and plead guilty to embezzlement) got to hold the chair for a few months.  The problem with the webe appointment was a blatant conflict of interest. Weber is a partner with the Mt. Holly law firm of Riley and Riley.  Riley and Riley were being considered for a legal services contract with the city.  Mr. Weber, who also served on Mayor Mack's transition team and was a former special counsel with Cooper Levenson. (You remember them, right?)

Well, it looks like Mr. Weber got the tiniest of wrist slaps from the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC) this week:

NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

P.O. Box 185

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0185

NEW JERSEY ELECTION
LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION,
Complainant,

FINAL DECISION FOR

LATE FILING

v.

ANDREW WEBER,
Respondent.

C-1598-1-2009L

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (hereafter, the Commission) considered at its meeting of March 15, 2011 the Complaint, issued on October 27, 2010, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13C-18 et seq., for non-filing of the Governmental Affairs Agent Quarterly Report (Form Q-4) for the 2009 third quarter report period, which Complaint is hereby incorporated by reference in this Final Decision. The Commission considered the Respondent’s Affidavit and Waiver of Hearing submitted in response to the Complaint, and by a vote of 4-0 adopted as its Final Decision the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Complaint, after modifying them to reflect that the Respondent filed a Governmental Affairs Agent Quarterly Report (Form Q-4) for the 2009 third quarter report period on February 1, 2011 (476 days late).

PENALTY

THEREFORE, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13C-23.1 and N.J.A.C. 19:25-20.18, the Commission hereby REPRIMANDS the Respondent and imposes a penalty in the amount of $300.00 for late filing of Form Q-4. Respondent submitted payment of $300.00. No further payment is required.

NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW

ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

Date of Mailing: March 30, 2011  BY: _____________________

RONALD DEFILIPPIS

Chairman

CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8442 8922
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

To be sure, a $300 fine is nothing to Mr. Weber.  And we're sure his late filing of a Government Affairs Agent (lobbyist) report was a mere technical oversight.  Right.
 
Just like not mentioning the various PAC's Mr. Weber is involved in during all of the Cooper Levenson/City of Trenton controversy was an oversight.  You know, PAC's like Voters United New Jersey that Mr. Weber just happens to have the sole signatory power on their checking account. 
 
According to the 4th quarter ELEC report filed (filed about two weeks late, btw) by Voters United, Riley and Riley, along with Cooper Levenson and Hydro-San (which has the same address and ownership as Alaimo Engineering, another consulting firm that has been trying to get work with the city of Trenton) all gave $5000 to Voters United last December. In that same report, we see that Voters United just happened to make a $2500 contribution to the questionable local Trenton PAC, Partners For Progress that same month.
 
But don't worry.  Mr. Weber, Mr. Levenson and friends have no undue influence over the Mack administration.  None whatsoever. 
 
Right.

Show me the money

If you have been hiding under a rock or stuck in an ice cave the past several days, you might have missed the latest in the ever lengthening line of scandals to hit the Tony Mack administration.

In a nutshell, the city awarded a contract for general legal counsel to the law firm of Cooper Levenson last October. The head guy at Cooper Levenson, Lloyd Levenson, was on Mayor Mack’s transition team and he headed up the committee that put together the Mayor’s Inaugural Ball.

The Mayor wanted Cooper Levenson to get the city contract so badly that he sent it before council three times before he could muster the four votes needed to carry out his desire. At the time, many raised the issue that Mr. Levenson, whose name was prominently featured on the invitation to the Mayor’s gala, was soliciting on behalf of the Mayor and therefore his firm was not eligible to be awarded the contract.

Mr. Levenson, of course, denied that he ever contributed to or solicited contributions on behalf of Mayor Mack. Four members of Trenton’s city council: Alex Bethea, Phyllis Holly-Ward, Kathy McBride, and Verlina Reynolds-Jackson voted to approve the contract.

On January 31, the Times published a story detailing a $7,200 contribution made to a local Political Action Committee (PAC), Partners For Progress (PFP). PFP in turn made an equal contribution to Mayor Mack’s campaign.

A spokesman for Cooper Levenson claims that the firm sent a letter requesting the return of the contribution so they could proceed with soliciting business from the city. The spokesman claims the contribution was repaid and so the potential violation of the city’s Pay to Play ordinance was averted.

If that is the case…show us the cancelled check proving that the contribution was indeed refunded, when it was refunded and that it was re-deposited into the law firm’s account.

Until that check is produced no one should have to take Mr. Levenson’s or anyone else’s word that the violation was “cured,” as the lawyers say.

As for PFP, their tardy reporting to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) just may be central to what is looking to be a very interesting story.

Partners For Progress was formed, in early 2010 by Cynthia Taylor, Carla Hogan and Pete Fields: two Trenton residents (Fields and Hogan) and the owner of a Trenton business (Taylor owns Jet Wine and Liquor on Willow Street). At the bottom of a press release distributed about 3:00 pm on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 PFP states the following:

Partners for Progress PAC — Partners for Progress PAC is an independent, non-partisan group of individuals dedicated to supporting candidates, organizations or causes who demonstrate a commitment to advancing the interests of their community socially and economically. Through political participation and organizational support,

Partners for Progress PAC plans to endorse candidates or causes who have shown an interest in shaping good government policies that will advance the issues important to our organization.

Partners for Progress PAC’s mission is to not only raise money – but also to raise awareness about the political process, educating potential candidates, candidates, and organizations on how to successfully participate in the political process.

Well, maybe Ms. Taylor, Ms. Hogan and Mr. Fields should have raised their own awareness and educated themselves on how to correctly participate in the political process.

PFP is required by law to file quarterly reports detailing their fundraising and expenditures. Since they “organized” in February of last 2010, their first report covering inception through March 31, 2010 was filed when due on April 15, 2010. No additional reports were filed until January of this year when the one covering the period ending June 30 and due on July15 was given to ELEC.

The reports due October 15 and January 15 for the 3rd and 4th calendar quarters have yet to be filed (or at least aren’t yet posted to the ELEC website).

{Note: As far as that goes, many of our candidates/elected officials are behind in their report filing as well. But we’ll get to that some other time.}

Besides the late and missing filings, there are some other issues with PFP’s reporting.

In December, Politicker NJ reported that ELEC was investigating the unreported and excessive contribution made to Tony Mack’s campaign by PFP.
By law, a PAC like PFP can only contribute up to $8,200.00 to a candidate committee in an election. The Mack campaign reported receiving a contribution of $8,805 from PFP…$605 over the limit. PFP hadn’t filed the required reports so there was no record of the contributions from that side…a violation of the state’s campaign finance laws.

Interestingly, the Mack campaign also reported a reimbursement back to PFP of $3,173. But it only had to return the $605 excess. Hmmm.

Why then, did Mack return an additional $2,568 to PFP? There’s no details on the Mack report…could it have been a “partial” repayment of the infamous $7,200 from Cooper Levenson?

Let’s say it was returned to PFP so PFP could in turn repay Cooper Levenson. Where is the documentation?

PFP’s sole report, filed months late and only after the story appeared on Politicker NJ has an entry showing the return of the $3,173 from the Mack campaign but it doesn’t show any reimbursement…in part or in whole…to Cooper Levenson.

Did the reimbursement come in the next reporting period (July 1 – September 30)?

We don’t know because there is no evidence of PFP report having been filed for that or any subsequent period.

In the Times article on this mess published February 3, reporter Alex Zdan wrote the following:

According to Mack, the city received Cooper Levenson’s refund letter when it was sent to Partners For Progress June 28, three days before Mack became mayor. A copy of the letter could not be provided to The Times last night.

“The problem is, it’s in a locked office and I don’t have the key,” mayoral spokeswoman Lauren Ira said.

McKithen could not be reached for comment last night.

Partners For Progress’ Cynthia Taylor denied the $7,200 was specifically for Mack.

“We didn’t approach him, he came to us, he didn’t say, ‘This is for Tony, or anything like that,’” Taylor said yesterday.

Although Levenson said the firm received a full return of their contribution, Taylor said she was not sure.

“Well, like I said, I don’t know what’s going on, what happened since then,” she said. “I just know they asked for the money back sometime in June.”

So was the money returned or wasn’t it?

Levenson claims there was a full return of the contribution, but Ms. Taylor doesn’t know. And, according to the paperwork filed with ELEC, Ms. Taylor signs the checks for PFP.

A reading of the city of Trenton’s Pay to Play ordinance makes it pretty clear that the contribution has to be returned in full before the violation is corrected.

Let’s look at another aspect of the PFP report. The first sheet of the 30 page document gives a summary accounting of the PAC’s funds. It shows an entry of cash on hand of $2,248.71.

If PFP hadn’t returned the $7200 contribution to Cooper Levenson by the June 30th close of the reporting period as indicated by the report, then the refund must have occurred later (if at all).

Since no subsequent reports have yet to be filed, we can’t determine if a later payment was actually made. But with a balance of $2,248.71 shown on the report, PFP would have to find another $4,951.29 somewhere to make up the difference and be able to return the contribution to Cooper Levenson.

Again, no subsequent reports have been filed, so PFP can’t show that they took in the money.

Doesn’t seem likely that they returned Cooper Levenson’s contribution, does it?

There are other interesting aspects of the PFP report filed on January 27, 2011. We’ll get to those in the next installment.

Is there something in the water?

If we weren't so busy running around fighting the rest of the population of the eastern seabord for our fair share of bread and milk we would have posted this yesterday.

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:

"Trenton politics is not seen by its citizens as corrupt."

Any Trenton citizen who hasn't questioned the accountability, ethics and/or transparency of the current administration just hasn't been paying attention.

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.

GOTCHA, again!

Thursday's revelation that the Palmer Administration's hired gun Joe Alacqua cancelled a contract with a local insurance agent due to allegedly improper contributions to Manny Segura and Zachary Chester left a lot of people scratching their heads.

Segura has long gotten contributions from businesses and other politicians...directly or via the joint candidates committee that supported "the Palmer slate" of himself, Council President Paul Pintella and Cordelia Staton in 2002 and 2006. Some of these contributors, like former Senator Bob Torricelli or Stowell Fulton of Atlantic Associates end up doing lucrative business with the city. (In 2006, Torricelli and/or his ex-wife gave a over $10,000 to Palmer and his slate. In the same year, Stowell Fulton gave $2600 to the joint candidates committee, Trenton 2006 and Bernard Fulton, also affiliated with Atlantic Associates, gave $2500 to Palmer's campaign. This was prior to the enacting of the Pay-to-Play ordinance now in effect.)

Mr. Chester, on the other hand, is making his first run for public office. Along with his wife, Alysia, Chester was instrumental in getting the city's Pay-to-Play law adopted through referendum. A law, by the way, drafted and vetted through the Citizen's Campaign...a non-profit, non-partisan corporation working to clean up New Jersey's extremely corrupt political system. That neither of them completely understood the technicalities of the law they helped get passed is unfortunate.

But the real question was, how did this happen to come to light at this time.

Some of our operatives started digging around in the reports available from the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC) website to see what they could find out about this situation. Strangely enough, the candidate reports readily available online didn't show anything about the specific campaign contributions referenced in the press reports.

Going back over the text of Friday's article in the Times (as opposed to Friday's reportage in the Trentonian) the Front Stoop staff got the sense that the information leading to Borden-Perlman's disqualification must have been found elsewhere.

Further research revealed that any business entity receiving more the $50,000 in aggregate from any public entity must provide a Business Entity Annual Statement (Form BE) detailing any and all contributions made to local, county or state candidates, PAC's or Political Committees. This form, once completed by the potential vendor, would be submitted to NJ ELEC.

BINGO!

Borden-Perlman has a long history of making political contributions. Apparently and appropriately the firm disclosed the campaign and political contributions they made in Trenton and Mercer County, assuming all the while they were within compliance of the law and eligible for the contract.

Even Alacqua seems to agree there was no intent to break the law. The Times reported:

The law bars violators from getting city contracts for four years, but Alacqua said it appeared that Borden Perlman did not deliberately break the law. He noted that the city discovered the violation only because the company voluntarily disclosed its campaign contributions in compliance with a state law that applies to insurance companies.

Somebody in the business office at city hall must have been doing their due diligence and taken notice that there might be some questions about the legality of certain contributions and taken it upon him or herself to flag the contract.

But who would do such and thing and why?

Oh.

Wait.

Here's the scenario the conspiracy committee at From the Front Stoop has come up with:

The Acting (after more than a year!) Business Administrator for the City of Trenton is Dennis Gonzalez.

Reportedly, Dennis Gonzalez was brought to Trenton on the recommendation of Manny Segura. (They knew each other from Perth Amboy. Gonzalez's wife was the campaign treasurer for Segura's 2002 run). This was all "fine" until Manny decided to bolt from the Palmer sphere of influence and strike out on his own.

For his part, Gonzalez would remain a loyal Palmer soldier. (He'd probably be unemployed if he wasn't) What better way to maintain the master's favor than to take a shot at the defector.

And, as a bonus, Gonzalez got to throw some dirt on Zachary Chester who bested him in a battle of nerve and words a couple of years ago. Chester, you may recall, made a very public inquiry about the status of various development projects (then under the purview of Dennis Gonzalez as Housing and Economic Development Director). Gonzalez, never the statesman, threatened to sue Chester if there wasn't a retraction (retraction of what, no one was ever quite sure).

The information on what Borden-Perlman undoubtedly thought were perfectly legal campaign contributions was given to Special Counsel and Palmer Puppet Joe Alacqua.* No doubt accompanying the documentation was a strong suggestion to kill the Borden-Perlman contract. Should Chester and Segura have their integrity questioned or images smeared in the process...oh well, bonus for Gonzalez.

And should the contract go to another vendor, with deeper pockets and stronger ties to the Democratic party in New Jersey, so much the better for Palmer and company. (see POLITICKERNJ blog on the Battle for Trenton).

The denizens of the Front Stoop admit they don't have first hand knowledge of any of the above. It is offered up merely as a suggestion of what might have occurred.

We leave it to the reader to decided for him or herself.

*Let the record show that in Saturday's Times Mr. Alacqua was reported as saying he opposed the legislation when it was proposed because it was too strict.

"It just doesn't make any sense. If you have a contract, you can't give anything," he said.

He should have been happy to have the ordinance adopted as it would save him having to donate the $2850 to Palmer and company every few years as he did in 2006.

GOTCHA!

Interesting news out of City Hall last night: an insurance vendor lost a sizable contract because of campaign contributions to At Large Councilman/Mayoral Candidate Manny Segura and West Ward Council Candidate Zachary Chester.

The ever vigilant (and hired gun) Special Counsel, Joseph Alacqua had City Council throw out the nearly $200,000 contract with Borden-Perlman Agency because they had made contributions that allegedly violate the city’s “Pay-to-Play” ordinance.

Segura received some $460 in campaign contributions in 2008 and 2009. Chester, a first time candidate in this year’s election, received $100 in 2009.

Borden-Perlman is a long-time area business with a solid track record of supporting the community and the many non-profits that operate here.

For all intents and purposes, it looks as though Borden-Perlman thought they were in compliance with the law and mindful of contribution thresholds that, if exceeded, would trigger such action as Alacqua initiated.

Segura, who originally voted against the Pay-to-Play measure when it was introduced by petition in 2006, told reporters that while he is in favor of such measures he thinks this is more politics than policy.

"It's funny it just happened at this time," said Segura, a frequent critic of Mayor Douglas H. Palmer. "For them to bring something like that is so pitiful."

“I agree with pay-to-play ordinances,” he continued, “but I think it’s very difficult to know everything about everybody who makes a contribution. I don’t think anyone would think that $460 could influence anybody. This is not right.”

Unfortunately, the councilman seems to think due diligence upon the part of elected officials and/or candidates about who is contributing how much to their campaign funds is not required.

“I would guess that all seven of the City Council members do not know about every political contribution made to us. It’s a shame that a reputable company loses a contract over a lousy small amount of money.”

Chester and his wife, Alysia Welch-Chester, were amongst those who worked to get the city’s ordinance passed. After the City Council voted against the law, it went to a referendum and the public voted it in.

So far, only Welch-Chester has spoken out on the situation. She claims it’s a misinterpretation of the threshold portion of the law and is seeking legal clarification.

“If what Mr. Alacqua is saying is correct, then this was not the intent of the ordinance. We just wanted transparency in government,” Welch-Chester said.

Whether the action taken by Alacqua was correct or not (and if not, what kind of sanctions will be levied against him and/or the City of Trenton?), there is another interesting side to this story.

The firm that got the insurance contract in place of Borden-Perlman is Atlantic Associates of Atlantic City, NJ.

One of the principles of that firm, Bernard Fulton, gave $2500 to Mayor Palmer’s re-election campaign in May of 2006. Another principle, Stowell Fulton, gave $2600 to the Trenton 2006 joint candidates committee that helped re-elect Segura to his council at large seat along with fellow at large councilpersons Paul Pintella and Cordelia Staton.

To be fair, Borden-Perlman contributed $2,150 to Palmer’s campaign in 2006.

But the Fulton’s appear to have a long history of contributing to Democratic candidates in the area including Bonnie Watson Coleman in 2001.

Why would an Atlantic City based insurance agency be interested in who gets elected in Trenton/Mercer County?

Let this situation serve as a warning to all contributors, candidates and incumbents. Be mindful of the laws governing campaign contributions. What might seem innocent and piddling today may not be so insignificant when it appears in the headlines tomorrow.