Lagerkvist: Christie's security expenses hit $1.7M, details remain secret

Christie’s security travel costs hit $1.77 million; how most was spent remains a mystery

The travel costs of the governor’s security detail soared last year with Chris Christie’s presidential ambitions, but details of how the taxpayers’ money was spent remain a state secret.

Of the nearly $614,000 spent on travel in 2015 by the State Police Executive Protection Unit, $545,000 was charged to American Express cards issued to the governor’s office. Citing concerns for Christie’s safety, the state has refused to release the Amex statements that list food, lodging, transportation and incidental expenses for out-of-state trips.

Overall, EPU expenses totaled nearly $1.77 million for Christie’s first six years as New Jersey governor. More than 85 percent – or $1.52 million – was charged to state Amex accounts, effectively exempt from outside scrutiny.

A NJ Spotlight analysis of internal administration documents, obtained through Open Public Records Act requests, illustrate how the EPU travel costs increased year-by-year as Christie pursued his political fortunes outside of New Jersey:

2010 – $64,975: Security travel expenses during Christie’s first year as governor were roughly one-tenth of the 2015 total.

2011 – $129,842: EPU expenses double as Christie starts to get national attention.

2012 – $248,277: Costs double again as Christie’s political star continues to rise, culminating in his keynote speech at the Republican National Convention and campaign appearances for Mitt Romney.

2013 – $220,355: Christie’s out-of-state trips decrease slightly as he campaigns in New Jersey for re-election as governor.

2014 – $492,420: As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie journeys extensively to help raise $106 million in political contributions. While RGA pays for Christie’s expenses, taxpayers are stuck with the EPU bills.

2015 – $613,693: More than $340,000 in EPU travel costs are racked up after June 30, the date Christie officially declared his candidacy for president. During 2015, Christie traveled outside the state for all or part of 261 days.

The complete story and supporting documents are online at NJ Spotlight – http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/03/13/christie-s-security-travel-costs-hit-1-77m-how-most-was-spent-remains-mystery/

# # #

Mark Lagerkvist is a veteran investigative reporter who has worked for CNBC, News 12, Asbury Park Press, New Jersey Watchdog and other newspaper, television and online news outlets. His work has won more than 60 journalism awards, including honors from National Press Club, Scripps Howard Foundation, and Investigative Reporters & Editors (IRE). He can be reached at Mark@Lagerkvist.net.

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.

If You Were Watching The 121212 Concert Last Night, You Missed Cory Booker On The Daily Show

While he wasn't quite ready to announce his intentions of whether or not he will take on Governor Christie next year, he does sound like a candidate who's ready to run for something.


In part 1 of this exclusive, unedited interview, Newark Mayor Cory Booker addresses his superhero reputation and the difficulties of living exclusively on government food stamps.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In part 2, Cory Booker addresses his possible candidacy for governor of New Jersey and the importance of public investment.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In part 3, Newark's Cory Booker warns of a permanent recession if America can't fix its education gap and dumb politics.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I Wonder If This Affects Anyone Currently Sitting On Middletown's Board of Education or Applicants?

Seeing how there is a vacant seat currently on the Middletown Board of Education and that the Board is currently accepting application to fill that seat, I wonder how many applicants or current board members know about a bill recently signed into law by Governor Christie, creating tighter restrictions on eligibility requirements of those that serve on New Jersey school boards.

Journalist Mark Spivey recently wrote about this in a column that appeared on various news outlets around the area titled "Member might lose BOE seat; Faces disqualification from '68 drug charge"

...The bill “permanently disqualifies from employment or service” on those boards anyone who has been convicted of a wide range of crimes, including all first- and second-degree offenses (among them many drug-related offenses) but also more minor charges including criminal mischief, reckless endangerment or resisting arrest....

According to the bill, each of the nearly 5,000 members of New Jersey’s hundreds of boards of education is required to undergo a comprehensive criminal history and background check within 30 days. Board members are responsible for covering the cost of the background checks out of their own pockets.

Locally based Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Union, explained that the bill mirrors existing state restrictions on public schools’ hiring practices.

“If we prohibit someone from teaching in a classroom because of past convictions, then they definitely should be prohibited from presiding over the education of an entire school district,” Green said. “It’s a commonsense change that is long overdue.”

I wonder how many current, past or future candidates for the BOE have long buried skeletons in their closets from their youthful indiscretions; Potentially there are many, but should it really preclude them from serving on the board now or in the future after so many years have past? After all, the same standard isn't applied to those seeking public office.

I'd like to see what happens if it is found that any current or past members of the Middletown Board of Education is affected by this new law. How will it be handle, will the public know about the real reason why a for current member's was removed or stepped down or why a past member seeking reappointment was past over or barred from running again?

Now don't jump to conclusions here on me, I am not making insinuations about anyone currently presiding on the BOE or who has stepped down recently. I am just pointing out the potential ramifications this new law will have on those that wish to serve on a local school boards, whether it is Middletown's or some other town.

Let The Spin Begin: Press Release In Advance Of Budget Introduction Issued By Middletown Committee

In advance of tonights budget introduction by the Middletown Township Committee, the follwoing press release was issued a short while ago, all I can say is let the spinning begin. It seems that only in Middletown can the municipal budget be cut by nearly $4 million but the amount need to be raise through taxation increases by $1.58million. I guess I should be glad though, could you imagine what the tax increase could have been if the Township Committee didn't adhere to the Governor's mandate to stay under the 2% cap?...

MIDDLETOWN – The Middletown Township Committee anticipates introducing its 2011 municipal budget that is $3.87 million (5.9%) less than the Township’s 2010 budget.

“Middletown’s proposed municipal budget is very austere and in full conformance with the new 2% cap levy law despite the Legislature’s continued failure to enact the Governor’s tool kit reforms that would empower the Township to make further cuts,” said Middletown Mayor Tony Fiore.

“We are hopeful to continue to rein in spending through ongoing negotiations with the Township’s collective bargaining units with a focus on decreasing the Township’s health care costs." “Cuts in the proposed budget include the layoffs of 26 employees, including 10 police officers, and the third consecutive year of salary freezes for the Township’s managerial employees,” continued Fiore.

“Middletown will continue to focus on core governmental functions while seeking other ways to continue to reduce costs though interlocal agreements and the Township’s solar initiative that is currently under way.”

Proposed Budget Data and Facts

• 
  
  The proposed 2011 municipal budget is $61,114,285 compared to the adopted 2010 budget that was $64,979,576.


• 
  
  The proposed budget represents an actual decrease in spending of $3,865,291 (5.9%) from the 2010 budget.


• 
  
  The largest cost drivers offsetting the Township’s $3.87 million in budget cuts are tax appeal refunds, State-mandated pension contribution increases of 22%, and costs associated with deferred charges due to numerous retirements last year.


• 
  
  The proposed 2011 budget anticipates an increase in the total tax levy of $1,357,855 which complies with the new 2% cap levy law and will cost the average Middletown homeowner approximately $5 per month.


• 
  
  The municipal budget makes up only approximately 22% of the average property tax bill, the remaining portion relates to the school and county tax levies.

Is A Scharfenberger Recall Effort Possibly Underway In Middletown?

Ever since the news broke about Gerry Scharfenberger being appointed by Governor Christie to a $95,000 a year job as the new Director of the Office for Planning Advocacy and then keeping it quite by lying to the press when asked by several local news organizations such as the Asbury Park Press,Two River Times, Greater Media's the Independent and RedBankGreen.com about his current employer during this past election season, I've been receiving a ton of emails and comments left on this blog from friends and other Middletown residents that are upset at being deceived once again by the master of deception himself, Gerry Scharfenberger.

These people, some of whom voted for Scharfenberger, are angry and want to know what can be done about overturning the outcome of Tuesday's election due to the fact that if they had known in advance about Gerry's new position in Trenton it may have changed their votes.

But what really has them upset is his lame excuses for not making the appointment public knowledge back in August when he accepted the job. Scharfenberger has been quoted as saying ""I just assumed that everyone knew." by the Asbury Park Press and "I wasn't go to promote it to help my election, which I thought would be unfair." by the Atlantic Highlands Herald.

Many of these people think that keeping this information from the public, while not illegal, was unethical and the equivalent to fraud. They are thinking of taking action against Scharfenberger by starting a Recall campaign against him.

When I heard this for the first time, I thought it was an intriguing idea so I looked up the Recall Provision in the NJ State Constitution to see what it would entail.

Article 1, section 2b explains what needs to be done in order to recall a local public official as follows:

The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

After reading the provisions it seems that all which is needed is to collect Scharfenberger is the signatures from 25% of all the registered voters in Middletown on a petition, which would be about 12 thousand or so, within 160 days. It seems doable but I doubt that it is plausible, recall efforts very seldom work, many signatures are challenged and thrown out by the powers that be and it is extremely time consuming to gather all those signatures

So we are probably stuck with him until he either resigns on his own from the Township Committee or is eventually thrown out of office by the voters after the next election. With that being said though, if anyone truly wants to start the recall effort, I'd sign my name to it.