The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
Don't forget to VOTE on Tuesday
Yes, I know. Another election already?
While not directly related to your tax dollars, the election this Tuesday June 8th helps to determine the district Committee Person(s) (both Dem and Rep) for the County Committees.
Ideally, these committee persons are to represent the people in their neighborhoods, and can be a liaison to the Ward Council person.
On the Democrat side of things (I am not familiar enough to comment on the Republican), each committee person is also a voting member of the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HDCO). Previously this group has been used to funnel money to select candidates (like David Roberts) without any donation restrictions. Developers would write big fat checks to the HDCO, and it could be directed anywhere in the county.
More recently, because of active individuals fighting for transparency and against "the machine", these practices have been somewhat negated. However, if we are not vigilant, those abuses could return.
Please go out and vote on Tuesday. If you like transparency, and want to help keep the old back-room politics out of our county, I highly recommend voting for the people in column B.
Thanks,
Greg Lincoln
While not directly related to your tax dollars, the election this Tuesday June 8th helps to determine the district Committee Person(s) (both Dem and Rep) for the County Committees.
Ideally, these committee persons are to represent the people in their neighborhoods, and can be a liaison to the Ward Council person.
On the Democrat side of things (I am not familiar enough to comment on the Republican), each committee person is also a voting member of the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HDCO). Previously this group has been used to funnel money to select candidates (like David Roberts) without any donation restrictions. Developers would write big fat checks to the HDCO, and it could be directed anywhere in the county.
More recently, because of active individuals fighting for transparency and against "the machine", these practices have been somewhat negated. However, if we are not vigilant, those abuses could return.
Please go out and vote on Tuesday. If you like transparency, and want to help keep the old back-room politics out of our county, I highly recommend voting for the people in column B.
Thanks,
Greg Lincoln
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kurt Gardiner on -
Greg I concur and here are the list of candidates for row B:
http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/democratic-commitee-r...
-
Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on -
John, I respectfully but emphatically disagree. The people in Column B are trying to prevent the machine from doing what it has done in the past.
In my district (3-1) the Column C choice is George DeStefano. The same George DeStefano who admitted to City Council that all he really does is open the mail (and get paid six figures for it). George has done NOTHING in our neighborhood as Committee Person. He's content to be elected, then sit back and do nothing but vote for his cronies.
That's the type of representation Column C gives you. I'll take my chances with those who are willing to change the culture of entitlement and corruption, thanks.
Greg
John Stevens keim said:Greg, Column B is supported by the HCDO and thus represent a new form of the old game of back-room politics. If you are against that machine, you might consider voting Column C.
Thanks, John Keim
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Kurta on -
Column C is the Russo line, plain and simple. Why some of my friends in the reform movement feel so comfortable with La Familia is beyond my comprehension.
-
Permalink Reply by FAP on
-
John if I had a head injury I might consider voting for line C. Line C is mostly made up of the hacks that supported Cammarano and the corrupt machine that spawned him. The whole point of trying to reform the HCDO line is to keep that element out of government.
John Stevens keim said:Greg, Column B is supported by the HCDO and thus represent a new form of the old game of back-room politics. If you are against that machine, you might consider voting Column C.
Thanks, John Keim
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Can you list the names in column C?
I'm leaning towards B, but have to say, I'm concerned with any "group" getting too much power. It sounds like C column is part of "old corrupt, taking care of our own" but is column B part of "new elite, taking care of our own?" Ah, what to do? what to do?
John Stevens keim said:Greg, Column B is supported by the HCDO and thus represent a new form of the old game of back-room politics. If you are against that machine, you might consider voting Column C.
Thanks, John Keim
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Kurta on
-
These new "machine" folks running on Column B are the same folks that finally wrote bylaws for the organization. These bylaws preclude any financial involvement in the local, non-partisan race.
Section 3. OATH OF OFFICE:
The officers of the Hoboken Democratic Party pledge to support, endorse or otherwise aid only Democratic candidates for office running in partisan and/or Democratic races. In the event any officer violates this pledge, said officer shall forfeit the office and it shall be deemed vacant.
History lesson: in a fourteen-month period spanning 2000 and early 2001, the Hoboken Regular Democratic Party, chaired by Michelle Russo, contributed (funneled) nearly $250,000 to Anthony Russo’s city and school board slates, all running in non-partisan races. Why might you suppose they might want to gain control of the party again?
-
Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on
-
Completely agree with Eric here.
All of the people I know who are running in Column B are advocates of stopping the past practices used to funnel money to and elect Russo and Roberts, and are striving to bring transparency and ethics to the HDCO. Progress has been made, and now the Column C folk are fighting back, trying to keep their back-room dealing ways. The fact that the Russo clan is fighting so hard should give you a clue to how important this battle is. They've grown very comfy in their shrinking world of entitlement, and don't want to lose it.
Eric Kurta said:These new "machine" folks running on Column B are the same folks that finally wrote bylaws for the organization. These bylaws preclude any financial involvement in the local, non-partisan race.
Section 3. OATH OF OFFICE:
The officers of the Hoboken Democratic Party pledge to support, endorse or otherwise aid only Democratic candidates for office running in partisan and/or Democratic races. In the event any officer violates this pledge, said officer shall forfeit the office and it shall be deemed vacant.
History lesson: in a fourteen-month period spanning 2000 and early 2001, the Hoboken Regular Democratic Party, chaired by Michelle Russo, contributed (funneled) nearly $250,000 to Anthony Russo’s city and school board slates, all running in non-partisan races. Why might you suppose they might want to gain control of the party again?
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
I'm confused. Eric K indicates that the folks running on Column B were the impetus for creating bylaws that stop the use of party funds in non-partisan elections like mayor, council and school board. He also indicates that the Russos, who are the folks behind column C, actually used the party to funnel $250,000 into municipal races when they were in power, something that the new bylaws would no longer permit.
Yet John is supporting column C because he wants party $$'s out of municipal races. John - I don't get it. If that were truly your concern you'd clearly be supporting column B. Perhaps there's another reason that you're supporting column C that you could share with us so we could better understand where you're coming from.
It looks to me that this is basically a race between Zimmer and Russo and John is supporting Russo just like he supported Cammarano. Events proved him wrong then, and the unsavory history of the Russo family proves him wrong now.
-
Permalink Reply by Kyle on
-
we believe eric is right. vote column b. all the pay-to-play problems that POG hasnt addressed.
I will be voting column C. Column B is for pay to play.
The story of council conflicts that won’t go away
Bhalla made it clear he wouldn’t respond to Hoboken411, hoping the story would just go away. Wrong again Councilman. There’s too much to the Condon Conflicts to ignore. You already know Bhalla approved a $29,000 no-bid city contract for friend and officemate Paul Condon without even so much of as a public mention of his relationship. When called on it, Bhalla’s initial public comments might have left some with the impression he has no financial entanglements whatsoever with Condon. It turns out that’s not true. Under repeated questioning, Bhalla was forced to admit the following to reporter Tim Carroll:
• Despite an internet damage control campaign to the contrary, Bhalla and Condon signed a JOINT, three-year lease for the suite they share. Bhalla admitted if one were to default on the lease, the other would have to pay.
• Bhalla and Condon also share an employee in the form of a receptionist who handles business for both attorneys.
• Bhalla and Condon also share office equipment and supplies, which cost money.
Digging the hole deeper and deeper
Bhalla claims that since technically his and Condon’s law firms are separate entities, “There was no conflict, and in my sound judgment there was no appearance of a conflict.”
Same office. Same lease. Same receptionist. Same office equipment and supplies. Long-standing personal and professional relationship. No conflict in voting to give a no-bid contract? That doesn’t sound like “Change that’s Working” Councilman.
That sounds like same-old, same-old.
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION CONTINUES
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Kurta on
-
Kyle - I'll see your cut-and-paste and raise you fifty:
In 2004, the city’s first pay-to-play law was passed by the voters. The law limited and prohibited campaign contributions from firms receiving no-bid professional contracts with the city.
Michael Russo’s 2006 ELEC filings show a $500 contribution from a Paul Bontempo, self-employed, of Trenton, with no other information available. What is the significance of this, one asks? To understand, you have to know the following:
On July 12, 2006, the City of Hoboken granted GluckWalrath, LLP, a 12-month, no-bid professional services contract to provide special legal services as Municipal Bond Counsel. 17 days later, the aforementioned contribution was received from Paul Bontempo.
Bontempo is VP and Director of MBI Gluckshaw, a lobbying and government lobbying firm of which Hazel Frank Gluck is a partner.
Hazel Gluck is also a partner in the Gluck/Shaw Group, a lobbying firm, in which Michael Gluck, who is Hazel’s son, is a principal.
Michael Gluck is also a partner in GluckWalrath, LLP, the firm that was awarded the no-bid contract.
-
Permalink Reply by ditto on
-
When do you plan to read the Kate's memo (in full) which explains fully the relationship between Bhalla and Condon? And where is your outrage about the Mason ELEC violations that have come to light (checks payable to cash for multiple individuals)?
Kyle said:we believe eric is right. vote column b. all the pay-to-play problems that POG hasnt addressed.
I will be voting column C. Column B is for pay to play.
The story of council conflicts that won’t go away
Bhalla made it clear he wouldn’t respond to Hoboken411, hoping the story would just go away. Wrong again Councilman. There’s too much to the Condon Conflicts to ignore. You already know Bhalla approved a $29,000 no-bid city contract for friend and officemate Paul Condon without even so much of as a public mention of his relationship. When called on it, Bhalla’s initial public comments might have left some with the impression he has no financial entanglements whatsoever with Condon. It turns out that’s not true. Under repeated questioning, Bhalla was forced to admit the following to reporter Tim Carroll:
• Despite an internet damage control campaign to the contrary, Bhalla and Condon signed a JOINT, three-year lease for the suite they share. Bhalla admitted if one were to default on the lease, the other would have to pay.
• Bhalla and Condon also share an employee in the form of a receptionist who handles business for both attorneys.
• Bhalla and Condon also share office equipment and supplies, which cost money.
Digging the hole deeper and deeper
Bhalla claims that since technically his and Condon’s law firms are separate entities, “There was no conflict, and in my sound judgment there was no appearance of a conflict.”
Same office. Same lease. Same receptionist. Same office equipment and supplies. Long-standing personal and professional relationship. No conflict in voting to give a no-bid contract? That doesn’t sound like “Change that’s Working” Councilman.
That sounds like same-old, same-old.
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION CONTINUES
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on
-
Anyone know the results yet?
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
