From Dierdre's editorial in the May 8 Record:

Granted, New Jersey's Clean Elections program may need some fine-tuning in order to live up to its full potential. Yet, under no circumstances should its funding be cut to the point that it becomes yet another toothless governmental ethics reform measure.

Data released by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission show that 669 firms that gave $15 million in political contributions received $5.17 billion in contracts from all levels of government. According to a recent news report, "that's a return of $345 for every dollar donated."

And we wonder why New Jersey voters have so little confidence in statewide government.

The proposed reduction to the already under-funded election commission would place the five-member Special Programs Division in jeopardy. This division oversees the Clean Elections program and answers an average of 200 calls per day.

As well, this ill-advised proposal does not take into consideration the surplus cash returned to the state's coffers as a result of the Clean Elections process. For example, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood, returned a $13, 000 overage to the state that was left over from her Clean Elections campaign.

If New Jersey is to be serious about getting its governmental house in order, it must prioritize substantive and sustained change. Anything less sends the unmistakable message: Ethics in government is not a priority in the Garden State.

Because of our growing reputation as a kleptocracy, our Legislature signed a "sweeping," although half-hearted, set of ethics reforms into law in 2004. The ethics reforms were intended to address justifiable voter concern about dual-office holding, pension tacking and political influence-peddling (especially in the form of pay-to-play.)

Unfortunately, the Legislature had neither the heart nor the stomach to produce ethics reform legislation with teeth, except when it came to Clean Elections. But instead of cleaning itself up, the Legislature mostly passed the buck down the chain of responsibility, adding complications to the already stressful lives of public employees.

How? For one, adjunct professors subsisting on annual incomes of less than $20,000 found that their very modest pensions were at risk because they were somehow prioritized as significant pension tackers! But what about the powerful career politicians whom the reforms were initially designed to target? They conveniently passed the buck to others.

Another example of "reform" is specific to public employees who are compelled to search around (on company time, mind you) for a charity to which they can donate a $25 box of chocolates received from a student's family for a job well done! Is this really the heart of ethics problems in the public sector?

I don't know about you, but I don't think that this is what the bill's sponsors intended when they first set out to tackle governmental ethics. It is certainly not what our state's citizens consider the most pressing matter compromising their confidence in government.

Clean Elections and other real campaign financing reforms not only help to restore integrity to state-level government, they also help to incorporate more women and people of color into New Jersey's political system.

Our county-level politics remain a white, male enterprise. True, there are a number of white women who have made it through and now hold elective office. But if they oppose the male-dominated county machines, they find themselves attacked.

There are also some black and Latino men who have broken barriers and entered the upper echelons of county-level politics. But most of them are handpicked and financially backed by powerful county political machines as "diversity" window dressing. Noticeably absent from this level of political power are women of color.

During 2007, I ran against a machine-backed incumbent for the Englewood City Council. I ran as an independent Democrat who also happens to be a black woman, with a grass-roots coalition of labor, higher education and political activist support. Although I did not defeat the incumbent last time, my campaign garnered 40 percent of the vote. This was a remarkable result for a new, relatively unknown candidate running in a year with very poor voter turnout.

For me, running was an opportunity of a lifetime.

Of course, the urgent need to raise campaign funds and be competitive was time-consuming and difficult. Despite the handicaps inherent in being a political newcomer, I managed an effective campaign that stayed in the black.

Having the ability to participate in a Clean Elections program would have helped me as a challenger of the unsatisfactory status quo. I would have had a greater opportunity to reach out to residents who need to learn about an alternative to the corrupt, pay-to-play way of doing business that the political machinery props up.

If the Legislature is serious about reforming government and restoring competitive integrity to the process, it needs to put its proverbial money where its mouth is. Anything less perpetuates the failure of governments at all levels to live up to their mission of responsible, unselfish public service.

Less than two years ago, First Ward Councilman Rosenzweig was supporting Michael Wildes in public appearances during the Mayor's bid for a second term.  Now that the Councilman is running for his second term, the Mayor has reciprocated by running Anita Sniderman, the Mayor's own longtime, paid "executive assistant," against Rosenzweig in the primary.  Why has the Mayor decided to undermine his former friend and do such a painfully obvious power grab?

Clearly, Dr. Rosenzweig has delivered on his promise to serve the public interest over political and special interests.  In so doing, the Councilman has had to oppose Mayoral actions deemed not in the interest of Englewood.  Notably, Councilman Rosenzweig helped overturn the sweetheart tax deal the Mayor's Planning Board gave the Rt. 4 South developer -- a corporation originally represented by none other than County Democratic pay-to-play Boss Joe Ferriero.  In taking this courageous and responsible action, Ken Rosenzweig, Scott Reddin and the Council majority got millions of dollars of tax relief for the people of Englewood.

It is clear to Mr. Wildes, and anyone paying attention, that currying favor with Joe Ferriero is the key to political advancement in Bergen County.  This is not idle speculation. In the last update of The Englewood Report, we quoted David Sivella, Wildes' 2006 Mayoral campaign manager:

Joe Ferriero controls the money going to Democratic candidates for county offices the way the player with the most real estate in Monopoly has all the cash come to him...the valuable real estate is Column 1 [on the ballot], the party line. He owns it, and when you land on it, if you want to be there, you have to pay a hefty price.

In the past, Mr. Wildes actually tried to advance himself by opposing BCDO Boss Ferriero and the Boss's friend, Jack Drakeford. After all, Wildes had -- and still has -- enough cash to fund his own campaigns without the Boss's money.   But, that tactic clearly didn't work, as Wildes still needed the ballot position that the Boss controls. 

In 2005, Wildes had apparently decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, cozying up to the Boss in a failed attempt to advance himself to the Assembly.  Since then, our City has had to endure the Mayor's continual and brazen attempts to use his mayoral appointments, bank account and marketing machine to purge City government of those who do not serve his BCDO ambitions.  Last year the Mayor used his Planning Board/developer pal Marvin Anhalt to oppose Real Bergen Dem Charlotte Bennett Schoen.  This year, he has recruited his staffer, Anita Sniderman, to challenge Ken Rosenzweig.  As well, Wildes purged his Planning Board of independent-minded Fitz Haney and ex-Mayor Sandy Greenberg.  With the Planning Board, the Council and the mayorlty controlled from his office, Wildes might finally be able to reliably deliver Englewood for the Boss without meaningful opposition.

How have the Mayor's continued attempts to purge the Council and permit boards already impacted government in Englewood?  For one, the Mayor's Planning Board now notably lacks qualified experts and architects. According to The Suburbanite (April 15, 2008):

None of the current members has professional planning expertise. And that's exactly what the mayor said he wants.

At the very least, purging agencies and boards of professional expertise on political grounds will lead to "Good job, Brownie" moments. But that is clearly not a concern for a politician who prioritizes proving his worth to the gatekeepers of his political advancement. To accomplish this, Michael Wildes (like George Bush writ small) apparently chooses appointees who can demonstrate political friendship and loyalty to him, not those with professional expertise and independent judgment.

After ten years of trying to propel himself beyond Englewood, Michael Wildes knows he can no longer sell himself as a political boy wonder.  The clock ticks, the years go by and the stark contrast between the Mayor's PR story and his political actions becomes unavoidably clear.  After all, what do you think Michael Wildes stands for?  Answer these two simple questions for yourself:

What has Michael Wildes' core mission been for Englewood?
What has Michael Wildes' core mission been for himself?

After a decade of Wildes in government, isn't it amazing that the first question is so hard to answer and the second so easy?

The Primary is June 3. The Council's 4-1 majority (Rosenzweig, Reddin, Bennett Schoen, Johnson) stand as a veto-proof bloc against our Boss-pandering Mayor. A vote for Scott Reddin and Ken Rosenzweig is not only a vote FOR government by and for the people of Englewood.  It is a vote AGAINST the use of our city and its people as political stepping stones,  bargaining chips and pay-to-play profit centers.

At its annual Awards Dinner on May 21, 2008, the Englewood Historical Society will present a plaque to the Englewood Board of Education for its preservation of the building which serves as its headquarters, now known as the Russell C. Major Liberty School. The building, constructed early in the twentieth century, is considered by the Society to be one of Englewood’s architectural and historical treasures. It is adjacent to Englewood’s most historic location, Liberty Square, as the area around the Monument is known to historians.

The building and the property on which it stands are now owned by the City of Englewood, as part of an agreement with the Board of Education at the time of the School Bond Referendum in 2004. The Board must vacate the property by 2010, and the City is expected to sell the property in order to pay off indebtedness incurred at the time of the agreement. The Society is endeavoring to build public awareness of the building’s value, and to encourage support for preserving the building exterior in any development on the site. The former Franklin School on Engle Street, now the Renaissance Center, and the former Roosevelt School on Broad Avenue, now condominiums, are previous examples in Englewood of the reuse of former school buildings while retaining their distinctive exteriors.

After the incorporation of Englewood in 1899, Liberty School was the first public building it invested in, making a statement about the new City’s priorities. Begun in 1901 and dedicated on September 6, 1902, the original Jacobethan Revival core of Liberty School was designed by Herbert C. Davis of Davis, McGrath and Kiessling. The additions and alterations to the building, which consist of the northern side section (1913), and the southern side section (1927), designed by noted architect Lawrence Licht, and the more recent one-story bay window projections on the east facade, complement the character of the core, so that the whole building looks symmetrical, coherent, and well-designed. Liberty School has been seen as architecturally significant since its construction. In 1909, it was featured in American Architect, one of the central publications in the field, and in 1981-2, the Bergen County Historic Sites Survey included it as one of the more notable buildings in the County.

In 1999, the building was renamed in honor of Russell C. Major, who had served on the Board of Education for 18 years, longer than anyone else, and was a leading figure in support of quality public education during those years.

In addition to the Liberty School, the Society will also present a plaque to the First Presbyterian Church of Englewood, which had been previously honored in 1994. The Awards Dinner, annually a major community event, is scheduled to start at 6 PM on Wednesday, May 21, at the Double Tree (Hilton) Hotel, just off Route 4 East in Fort Lee. Tickets are $50 and will be available at the door or by telephoning 201-568-9244.