Council stalls, so resident offers ban on pay-to-play
Mayor says city will introduce own version
BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

LONG BRANCH — When the City Council failed to introduce a pay-to-play ordinance at the Feb. 22 council meeting, one resident took matters into his own hands.

Council President John Zambrano told residents at the Feb. 8 council meeting that the council would decide on introducing a pay-to-play ordnance before the next council meeting.

When one was not introduced, Kevin Brown, Broadway, exercised his right for “initiative and referendum.”

“This is an ordinance prepared in the last three to four weeks from information gathered over a year by myself, Bill McLaughlin [Ocean Boulevard] and Steve Fitzpatrick [former city employee],” Brown told the council at the meeting.

“Please realize I am not doing this for any reason other than for the people of New Jersey. It is not a personal fight, it is purely business.”

Brown presented the council with a five-page ordinance titled “Candidate for Elected Office and Public Contracting Reform” that outlines a proposed pay-to-play ordinance for the city.

“The issues that we hope to address in this ordinance are those issues that have surfaced from listening to the general public’s concern in regard to the credibility of New Jersey elected officials,” the three men wrote in a statement attached to the ordinance.

“No-bid contracts seem to be high on the list of those people who have lost confidence in local government,” he said. “In addition, are those contributions that have come from the benefactors of such awards, to the campaign account of those elected officials that decide who shall get the contracts in the first place.”

Mayor Adam Schneider responded that the council will introduce its own ordinance, possibly by the March 8 meeting.

“We have been following the state, the towns and the courts [decisions on pay-to-play],” Schneider said. “We have decided to do a fairly generic one that encompasses donation limitations and applies to both incumbents and challengers.”

He said he does not know what the city will do with the proposal presented by Brown.

“We have never bartered campaign contributions for a job,” Schneider said. “That has always been illegal and we have never done it. We are passing an ordinance to tell people what is already illegal is still illegal.”

According to the ordinance proposed by Brown, McLaughlin and Fitzpatrick, Red Bank, campaign funds for candidates will be regulated in the following manner:

• A campaign contribution cycle will be four years, election day May 2002 to May 2006.

• Any candidate, whether in office or seeking office, who desires to [run on a ticket] can do so, and the caps on each member of the ticket will be reduced by 50 percent.

• Spending by candidates for mayor will be capped at $25,000 in a four-year cycle and $12,500 if teamed with one or more council candidates.

• Spending by council candidates will be capped at no more than $10,000 in a four-year cycle and $5,000 if teamed with one or more council candidates and/or mayoral candidate.

• All candidates who do not file appropriate petitions to be included in the May municipal election will refund contributions in their campaign account no later than the last day of May on the year in which the election is held.

• All funds not exhausted in the campaign shall be treated as excess contributions and dealt with as outlined in Section 6 of the proposed ordinance.

• An individual becomes a candidate upon filing a candidate sworn statement with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC).

• All individuals will be treated equally under the ordinance, whether they are incumbents or challengers, and shall abide by all provisions of the ordinance.

• All contributions not required to be reported to the New Jersey ELEC shall be reported to the city clerk.

According to the initiative and referendum process, once a copy of the ordinance is presented to the council, the council has the option of reviewing and adopting it.

If the council does not have a first reading within a month, petitions in support of the ordinance must be obtained from no less than 10 percent of registered voters in the community.

The signatures must be presented to the city clerk, and the clerk has 20 days to declare the petition valid or state how many more valid signatures are needed.

If more signatures are needed, they must be obtained within 10 days.

Once the petition is declared valid, the council is required to hold a vote on the proposed ordinance and if it is voted down, the ordinance will appear on the November general ballot.

“Many [from the general public] felt that controlling contributions and disbursements [caps] and prohibiting contributions to elected officials from contract seekers, was a necessary step,” according to the statement attached to the proposed ordinance.

“However, most, if not all, thought the problem actually began as a result of length in time in office. When an elected official is in office too long, they get too familiar and comfortable with campaign contribution person[s] and serve them more than the public to whom they are elected to serve,” it reads.