NJ Watchdog: Christie's transparency disappears

Chris Christie and the case of a public record that mysteriously shrunk in half are returning to Superior Court.

Last month, the court ordered the governor’s office to release its “secret” directory of media contacts and VIPs, assembled at taxpayers’ expense.

But what Christie’s staff gave New Jersey Watchdog last week contained only half of the information described in court papers. Instead of 2,500 names, the list has only 1,229 entries.

Judge Mary C. Jacobson will hear arguments next week on whether or not the record was altered before its release, a possible violation of the court’s order.

It is another chapter in the governor’s contentious battle to keep confidential a key cog in a publicity machine that turned Christie into a national figure and set the stage for his White House run.

The list was created by the Christie’s communications staff of 16 full-time state employees paid $1.36 million in salaries last year, New Jersey Watchdog found. It helped the governor score countless national television appearances, plus 8,761,511 views on YouTube, 176,955 likes on Facebook and 6,810 tweets to 489,000 followers on Twitter during his first five years in office.

At the center of the latest dispute is a certification by Matt Katz of WNYC. Katz was allowed to review but not copy the list at the governor’s office last year, as part of a settlement in a public records lawsuit by New York Public Radio.

Katz reported the list contained roughly 2,500 names. In viewing the record released to New Jersey Watchdog, he found “substantial differences” between it and what the governor’s staff had allowed him to inspect. In his statement to the court, Katz gave specific examples of information conspicuously missing from the list.

The complete story is online at http://watchdog.org/240489/christie-transparency-disappears/.

Pallone and Pascrell Call on Christie Administration for Transparency in Sandy Recovery Effort

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) and Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ-09) called on the Christie Administration to release additional information detailing how Sandy aid funds are being spent in New Jersey. In their letter to the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, the Congressmen called for more transparency in its Sandy Integrity Oversight Monitoring reports. Specifically, the lawmakers referenced an NJ Transit report, released this month, which failed to include information on the work performed by NJ Transit with millions of dollars in recovery funds.

In their letter, the Congressmen wrote, “The public has a right to know how NJ Transit is utilizing its recovery funds and whether this money is being spent properly. We fought hard in Congress to pass the Sandy aid package by assuring our colleagues that Sandy recovery funds were desperately needed and would be spent wisely.”

The Congressmen also called for the public disclosure of NJ Transit’s disaster preparedness plans, as they wrote, “so the public has confidence New Jersey’s rail infrastructure will be protected should another storm hit.”



The full text of the letter follows.

July 28, 2015

Robert A. Romano
Acting State Treasurer
Department of the Treasury
P. O. Box 002
Trenton, NJ 08625-0002



Dear Acting State Treasurer Romano,


We write today regarding a recent integrity oversight monitoring report reviewing NJ Transit Superstorm Sandy recovery funding. We are concerned with the lack of detail in this integrity monitor report and request that more transparency be provided so the public can understand what mistakes have been made in the Sandy recovery process and how Sandy aid funds are being spent in New Jersey.

This integrity monitor report does not include any information regarding the work performed by NJ Transit with millions of dollars in recovery funds. The public has a right to know how NJ Transit is utilizing its recovery funds and whether this money is being spent properly. We fought hard in Congress to pass the Sandy aid package by assuring our colleagues that Sandy recovery funds were desperately needed and would be spent wisely.

As the agency responsible for supervising the reporting process it is incumbent upon you to ensure NJ Transit appropriately discloses information to the public. However, attempts by the public to access NJ Transit’s policies and plans to address flooding risks to its infrastructure have been repeatedly denied. We believe that NJ Transit must publicly disclose its disaster preparedness plans, in addition to the contents of integrity oversight monitoring reports, so the public has confidence New Jersey’s rail infrastructure will be protected should another storm hit.

We respectfully request that all Superstorm Sandy integrity oversight monitoring reports provide full transparency and details on how the recovery funds have been spent, including the “observations and recommendations [that] have been provided to NJ Transit Internal Audit Department” listed in the NJ Transit 2015 first quarter report. The public deserves to know whether taxpayer dollars are being spent properly. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.



Sincerely,



FRANK PALLONE, JR.

 BILL PASCRELL, JR.

Member of Congress Member of Congress

NJ WATCHDOG: Christie challenges court order to release public record

I have little doubt that the Christie administration is one of the most secretive and corrupt gubernatorial administrations in NJ's long history of political corruptness. - MM

Gov. Chris Christie is challenging a court order for his office to release a high-tech media list, assembled at taxpayers’ expense, as a public record.

In a bizarre appeal, Deputy Attorney General Daniel M. Vannella argued the list is a “valuable asset” that would give New Jersey Watchdog an “unfair competitive advantage” over other media outlets. In his brief, Vannella cited a law that allows the state to withhold inside information from contractors who bid on government jobs.

New Jersey Watchdog does not bid on government contracts. It is a non-profit investigative news site that freely shares its content with other news outlets.

Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson ordered the governor’s office to turn over a copy of the list to New Jersey Watchdog by June 12. But instead of complying, the state attorney general filed a last-minute motion on the governor’s behalf, asking Jacobson to reconsider her decision.

Release of the media list “would be an unprecedented release of proprietary press information…that would provide an unfair competitive advantage to plaintiff,” wrote Vannella.

In reality, the list gives Christie a competitive advantage over his rivals and competitors in the political arena. It is an integral cog in a publicly-funded publicity machine that launched him into the national spotlight and towards a probable run for the White House in 2016.

It contains contact information for roughly 2,500 reporters, producers and editors, subdivided into categories, which enables Christie and his staff to selectively target efforts to promote their political ambitions.

The list was created by the governor’s communications staff, which consists of 16 full-time state employees paid $1.36 million in salaries last year.

It has helped the governor score countless national television appearances, not to mention 8,761,511 views on YouTube, 176,955 likes on Facebook and 6,810 tweets to 489,000 followers on Twitter during his first five years in office.

Vannella likened the media list to “trade secrets and proprietary commercial or financial information.” That exclusion in the public records statute was intended to protect confidential information that private businesses are required to share with state regulators.

That argument suggests the governor has a proprietary, or ownership interest in the list. But the governor’s office is not a private business. And while the media list may be a valuable asset for his political future, it is a governmental record, not Christie’s property.

“Gov. Christie should let the sun shine in, acknowledge the judgment of the court, and make this government-prepared information public,” said Prof. Charles Lewis, executive editor of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

“It's the law,” added Lewis, an advocate for transparency in government. “Honestly, he should know better.”

The report is online at http://watchdog.org/225235/christie-challenges-court-order/.

Gannett Newspapers v. Raritan Borough - A Huge Win For Transparency

For advocates of transparency and open government  there was a recent decision requiring  Somerset County municipality Raritan Borough, to reimburse over a half million dollars in legal fees to Gannett Newspapers, which filed suit to obtain documents in an electronic format that facilitates analysis. Gannett balked at the $1100 fee they were to be charged by the borough to provide the documents because the cost would have been a "road block" for the average citizen to afford. There was an article in the Asbury Park Press on 2/6/14 that announced the results of the case:

RARITAN — A court-appointed fact finder has recommended that a judge order this Somerset County municipality to pay the Gannett New Jersey media company a record-breaking $542,000 in legal fees as a result of a public records lawsuit.

The precedent-setting case, which the company won in August 2012, determined that the public is entitled to obtain public records in electronic formats that can be easily analyzed, as opposed to PDF formats or paper printouts.

Gannett first filed the lawsuit in 2009 after the company’s newspapers — the Asbury Park Press, Courier News, Daily Record, Home News Tribune, Courier Post and The Daily Record — sought county and municipal payroll records in an electronic, non-PDF format.

The case since has dragged on largely because the borough repeatedly filed new motions, all unsuccessful, challenging parts of state Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone’s rulings.

Ciccone appointed a special master in April to determine how much Gannett was entitled to receive in legal fees. The state’s Open Public Records Act allows plaintiffs to seek reimbursement of legal fees as a way to give the public-access law some teeth. Before the 2002 law, plaintiffs only were entitled to a $500 reward.

Agreeing that the case served a matter of important public interest, special master Thomas Quinn of the Florham Park firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker said “Gannett was (and is) trying to establish legal precedent that it can use for years to come.”

“While perhaps the Legislature did not envision litigation such as this and the amount of legal fees that the (special master) recommends, the issue in this case is one of public importance and Gannett is the prevailing party,” Quinn said in a recommendation submitted Tuesday. “It has furthered OPRA’s goals of access to the government and its information.”

Public records activists have called the 2012 ruling a victory for the public’s right to know. Concern for the public’s ability to affordably access public records in useful formats drove Gannett’s decision to pursue the litigation...  Read More

Like many other towns, Middletown is fond of providing PDF documents in response to records requests, even when a document was created using a different format. With a PDF file you can't check formulas, work with the data, or sort and search. Analysis of a large PDF file is cumbersome, if not impossible, and requires a whole lot of  work and technical skill. State law, which now has some teeth thanks to Gannett's suit, requires a public entity to provide data in a usable electronic format if it is requested and the file format is readily available.

This is a huge win for transparency that empowers citizen watchdogs!

APP Editorial: Make storm aid fully transparent

In today's Asbury Park Press there is an excellent editorial regarding governmental transparency in regard to Hurricane Sandy relief aid.

As the editorial states regarding Governor Christie, you can't rip into others (the National Flood Insurance Program) unless you yourself are willing to be held to the same standards instead of  "a weak-willed bureaucrat."

As the editorial also states Christie isn't the only one that has issues with transparency, in a paragraph that all too well describes Middletown the APP states, "More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers." It is nearly impossible to get a straight answer from anyone associated with the Middletown governing body when the issue deals with any type of finances.

New Jersey's elected and appointed officials need to do a much better job at being transparent. Holding back information lead to corruption and the dishonestly of our officials and the distrust of the citizenry.

Here's what the APP editorial has to say:

Politicians can make some very strange distinctions when it suits them.

Consider Gov. Chris Christie, who has generated so much good will — and scored quite a few political points for himself — with his fist-pounding, bipartisan determination in demanding aid for Sandy recovery and vowing the resurrection of the Jersey Shore.

He wants money, he wants relief for residents, he wants to get moving with reconstruction efforts, and he wants all of it fast. On Tuesday, he ripped into the National Flood Insurance Program for a lack of urgency in resolving claims, no doubt earning more than a few “Go, Governor” responses from victims struggling in the storm’s aftermath.

Yet when it comes to additional government transparency to assure that the funds pouring into the state for recovery purposes are being spent properly and efficiently, Christie’s tone changes dramatically. The can-do, make-it-happen governor is instead transformed into a weak-willed bureaucrat.

Democrats are pushing a bill that would require online document postings detailing the distribution of storm recovery money and the issuance of state contracts. Christie has been hesitant to agree to the plan, conceding the potential value of such transparency, but not if it “takes away from having bodies on the ground.”

So our state government doesn’t have enough manpower to be transparent? That’s nonsense — and Christie knows it. What does “on the ground” really mean in practical terms anyway? Are we to believe that someone’s going to stop hammering nails to repair a roof or fail to hand-deliver an aid payment for someone’s next meal so they can instead post a few documents online?

Christie wants everyone else to come through for New Jersey; he pulled no punches insisting that federal officials do whatever it takes to speed the processing of the flood insurance claims. He should demand the same efficiency from his own state government. And we find it difficult to believe the state can’t manage to provide more spending information online without somehow compromising the overall response to the storm.

More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers. That distrust has been earned by both parties and by countless means, and it does not change with a new leader, or an overhauled administration. It is a permanent stain.

That doesn’t mean every politician is dishonest. Far from it. But it does mean policies must be dictated by an assumption that corruption could be anywhere, and that the best antidote is as open a government as possible.

It is a certainty that less public scrutiny of Sandy recovery spending will lead to more of that money being wasted. Lawmakers need to help avert that before the funds evaporate. So let us all see exactly what’s going on.