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.

Usually the reader is privy to the final result rather than the internal dialogues that occur at the Englewood Report. While Bob and I have different approaches, we share a common concern: citizens who live and work in Englewood deserve to be well served by their government. And at times, there is plenty of room for improvement, transparency, right action and straight talk. This democratic project involves public officials taking risks and, at times, abuse at the hands of special interest operatives. And yes, it also entails the willingness to lose elections and battles on the way to winning the war for good government. Yet, Bob and I considered a recent debate/dialogue we had instructive for the reader on many levels. For that reason, I've decided to share that dialogue with you.

Bob's most recent column is focused on the questionable reasoning and ethics involved in the City's deal with Police Chief David Bowman -- one in a long line that includes similar deals with former City Manager Robert Benecke and that mirror those given to Fourth Ward Councilman Jack Drakeford and former City Manager Cheryl Fuller. Bob feels that such deals damage the City.

Upon initially reading the proposed commentary, I was more focused on public awareness. Is a critical mass of people prepared to seriously consider our critiques? Are we the right messengers? Does the public want to hear from candidates who lost elections and/or does everything we say from that point on become tainted as sour grapes? I also had another concern that weighed heavily on me.

There is one woman presently sitting on the City Council and only one female mayor in Englewood's history. I experienced outright misogyny (woman hating) when I recently ran for the 4th Ward Council seat.  And I got it from women and men, Black and White alike.   I am led to ponder Englewood's capacity to accept that Black women leaders, who clearly don't fit into a comfortable and archetypal model of leadership, have anything to contribute to the public good.

Bob clearly believes that even unsuccessful candidates, men or women, have something to add to the common good. Further, he possesses the strong conviction that, through the Englewood Report, we are able to stimulate public awareness, concern and dialogue. Until last week, however, I remained unsure and my uncertainty was more specific to my role as a Black woman who refuses to let others define me and chooses, quite deliberately, to speak truth to power. Further, my appearance is deceptive.  My petite presentation masks a combative and competitive person. Does Englewood want to hear from me? Am I the right person?

Well, as per usual, I have come to value the common sense in Bob's argument. I now believe that not only should I, but I have a responsibility to speak up and facilitate change. I would like to tell you that it was the power of Bob's argument alone that changed my perspective, but many times events converge. I will share such an event that changed my position. During my campaign, I came across a 14-year old City Affirmative Action ordinance that had never been enforced. I was livid about it because, while the constituents with whom I spoke never mentioned Chief Bowman's return to his position, they routinely mentioned concern for their children's future. They were confronting the fact that those children could no longer realistically expect to make a living in the City where they were born, and they worried about the City leaders (Black and White) helping to push and price them out of Englewood's Fourth Ward altogether.

As a result of listening to their concerns, I took the issue to the Bergen County Central Trades and Labor Council (AFL-CIO). As the ordinance calls for Union apprenticeship programs for City residents, they were very interested. I also took the issue to the State President of the NAACP, James Harris, and the Chief Operating Officer of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Ellen Brown. While Brown is currently studying the ordinance, Harris was immediately interested in both why the City had failed to enforce it and how he could help me in doing so.

After losing the Fourth Ward Council race, I have continued to work on this project because I believe it will enhance the quality of life for the underserved here in Englewood. Because I was not a sitting Councilperson, Gordon Johnson continued my work by taking the project to Acting City Manager Robert Casey on my behalf. I am grateful to Gordon and Mr. Casey for finding a venue (the Route 4 public access road) through which the ordinance can finally make a difference and fulfill its promise.  After years of inaction, this ordinance will finally be enforced and make a real difference for Englewood's young people.

Hearing the City Council discuss the project's next steps at the March 4th Englewood City Council meeting is further evidence that individuals do make a difference in the fight for transparency and good government. I've come to another realization, as well. Englewood is due for a course correction. Women…and yes, Black women, must play an integral role in that corrective effort.

I don't see the world in either/or terms, so I am not making the claim that women are better at governance than men. We are different, however, and often bring uniquely valuable insights and perspectives to the table. The lives women lead tend to make many of us more focused on the collective good rather than the personal.  And that orientation in government helps us to strive toward community transformation and redemption. Many times, we are more inclined to seek the moral high ground than the personally advantageous position.

For those reasons, Englewood does not need to feel satisfied that it had an majority female Council at one time and a woman mayor many years ago. Englewood needs a government today that can lead it to fulfill its promise as a community of energy, openness, diversity, and talent that others want to emulate. 

Women must be active partners and leaders toward that end.

During the time that I campaigned and all sorts of Englewood political insiders complained about party boss Joe Ferriero, I reserved judgment. Although there were clear indications that he helped my opponent to regain his Fourth Ward Council seat and continue the duo's quest to pimp those portions of the Fourth Ward that developers haven't yet been permitted to pillage, I maintained my stance that I did not have enough information to take any position for or against Mr. Ferriero. After all, as an academic, I have been trained to suspend judgment and analyze facts.

Now, however, the proverbial shit has hit the fan and I am damned mad. I was incredulous when I first read that Mr. Ferriero had decided to nominate Rev. Vernon Walton to fill Connie Wagner's now vacant Bergen County Freeholder slot. My disbelief had very little to do with the facts that Reverend Walton had accomplished the politically unheard of (in losing his Council-at-Large seat to Gordon Johnson--as an incumbent—only to later be considered for freeholder) or that the other frontrunner was Zonnie Lesane, a Black female who ran for the General Assembly (Democratic Line) in District 40 and received 16% of the vote.

That which incensed me most was the message that Mr. Ferriero has sent to Black Democrats. That message is that He can single handedly select our leaders for us and there's nothing we can do about it. The cajones here are unbelievable. Does Mr. Ferriero have so little respect for the Black community that he seriously believes he can "give" us our first Black freeholder and garner our vote? Does he believe that all of us are so blinded by the title "Reverend" that he merely needs to put a Black face with the title before us and he can count on our unswerving devotion? Does he believe that the majority of us have failed to learn lessons of the past, such as those taught by awesome teachers like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall through venerable quotes like, "My father told me there's no difference between a black snake and a white snake. They both bite"?

Did Mr. Ferriero forget or ever know the potency of these lessons or the tremendous impact they've had? Lessons such as these, in addition to my own life experience, have emboldened this citizen to move past using my vote and participation in the democratic process to uphold mere symbols of racial and/or gender equality, instead I choose substance. What is the substance of a particular candidate/nominee's message? Is that message prophetic and geared toward the common good or not? What has the candidate/nominee accomplished and how have those accomplishments positively impacted the Black community? I also find it ironic that Mr. Ferriero, the head of the Bergen County Democratic Organization, would deny me my right to fully participate in the selection of a person to fill this vacancy, by naming his choice in a most undemocratic fashion.

The term "Reverend" used to mean something (especially during the Civil Rights era) when many Black ministers were led by a prophetic vision and carried on a prophetic tradition. Public intellectual Cornel West distinguishes between Prophetic Christianity and a form he refers to as Constantinian Christianity that appears to be practiced by many of Englewood's Black ministers. According to West, Prophetic Christianity is "an ecumenical force for good [that continually reasserts itself] as the principles of public service, care for the poor, and the separation of church and state that this Christianity demands." In contrast, Constantinian Christianity "has much to do with the cozy alliance of Constantianian Christian leaders with the political elites beholden to corporate interests who provide shelter for cronyism." This is the brand that seems to resemble that practiced by far too many Black ministers in Englewood who seem all too willing to sell their congregants' votes for a new building extension or a patronage job for their wives in the Englewood school system. And Mr. Ferriero knows this fact all too well.

At the end of Spike Lee's School Daze, one of the main characters screams "Wake Up!" Some have contended that the call is prophetic and an admonition to contemporary Black America to awaken from its political slumber and spiritual nihilism. It serves as a plea for us to work past our apathy and more fully participate in the American democratic project.

Too many days, however, I awaken with the same words on my lips. But, my target audience is different. It is Englewood's citizenry. Since the full release of Governor Corzine's proposed school funding formula on December 12th, various groups (including parents of special education students and the State NAACP), school administrators (like Ringwood's School Superintendent Patrick Martin in the December 26th edition of The Record) and politicians like Bogota's Mayor Steve Lonegan (also featured in the Record's December 26th edition) have contributed to the public dialogue regarding plausible implications of the proposed bill for their respective constituencies.

Noticeably absent from this debate are Englewood public officials, school administrators, and community activists. I guess David Bowman's reinstatement and an ominous severance package for a yet unidentified, incoming City Manager take precedent over our 2,783 school children (as per the 2005-2006 National Center for Education Statistics); most of whom are Black and Latino. Like Lot's wife, Englewood seems stuck in place peering back at its past rather than strategizing for the future and Englewood's future is inextricably linked to its children and the education they receive in our public schools. Who is advocating on behalf of Englewood's children?

For those who might counter that Englewood hasn't taken this cause up because it will see an increase (even if it is so modest that it can barely be detected), I counter that there is great cause for alarm. Englewood, like Ringwood, is scheduled to receive a 2% increase in state school aid next year and it will not lose aid for the three years following, if the Governor's formula is made into law.

The new school funding formula has been praised for increasing total state aid to schools by approximately $533 million, or 7%, to $7.8 billion. If the bill is passed during the lame duck session of the legislature (ending on January 7th), a number of other school districts throughout the state will receive 10-20% increases. The debate is further complicated when one considers that Bergen County, with a single Abbott district, will emerge a winner with an overall projected 13% increase in state aid next year. As so many of us are aware of the Englewood school system's great need, why are we receiving so little? Further, after the three year period during which we're "held harmless," then what?

There is a method to the Governor's madness, however, in attempting to push the plan through during the lame duck session. First of all, many constituents view property tax relief as opposed to "helping somebody else's children" through the Abbott decision a no-brainer. The Abbott decision stems from a 1981 lawsuit filed on behalf of children in the state's poorest school districts and by the nonprofit Education Law Center.

The feature of the new school funding plan related to Abbott is the most controversial with its substitution for and replacement of New Jersey's court mandated "Abbott" initiative.

By aggressively pushing his school funding proposal, Corzine most likely sees himself as bypassing partisan bickering and advancing his 'ready, aim, shoot" management style.

While I understand the dilemma with which the Governor is faced, I don't agree with his approach of foisting his school funding formula on us without there being adequate time for parents, educators, teacher unions, school administrators and education scholars to weigh in. I would also like to see Englewood takes its rightful place at the table during the vetting process.

Most people have not read the 106-page document. I have and, even with specialized training in the fields of education and schooling, the plan (with its attendant formulas and lengthy explications) proves unduly complex and laborious to read. There is a need for both more careful scrutiny and consequential dialogue. If those needs go unmet, the school funding formula will go by way of the asset monetization plan. It will look like just another ploy in which the Governor advocates for transparency, but displays little of it.

Whoa, Bob!  The responsibility to heal Englewood's tortured racial past and present should not rest squarely on the shoulders of Englewood Police Chief David Bowman.  The residents of Englewood need to first stop hiding behind their curtains and acknowledge that there is a widening racial chasm that must be dealt with.
 
In order to appease, some City powerbrokers suggest that Bowman should bite the proverbial bullet and relinquish his position to a man who was made Acting Police Chief by an Interim City Manager prior to the point that the legal system had even received a chance to work.  I don't think so!  There are a number of facts that have been seemingly ignored or minimized in the decision of whether Chief Bowman should be reinstated or not.  I would like to highlight them here:

1) Suspended Chief Bowman was acquitted of charges that he falsified documents to get an inmate out of jail for the day to attend his father's funeral as were his co-defendants, Judge Joseph Clark and Police Sgt. Emma Jackson.

2)  A central leg of the prosecution's case was that the trio concocted a false warrant to help the inmate.  According to the prosecution, the warrant was illegal because it was based on the claim that the prisoner had paid a previous fine.  As reported in the November 16th edition of The Record, State Superior Court Judge William C. Meehan concluded that the inmate did, in fact, still owe the City of Englewood the outstanding fine at the root of the warrant used in his March 2003 release.

3) There have been well reasoned concerns presented by many, questioning whether David Bowman was ever qualified to assume the role of Police Chief.  After all, aside from being a lifelong resident of Englewood and tightly aligned with City powers-that-be, what else is there that rises to the level of substantive?  It is apparent that the City of Englewood paid a great deal of money to settle cases filed against Bowman acting in his capacity as Chief of Police.  Yet, the time to correct those wrongs, if any, was at the time during which they occurred rather than in the opportunistic way in which the matter is being handled now.

4) A little noted point that should be factored into this debate is the deep and Byzantine relationship that lies under the surface involving Blacks and law enforcement.  The fact that the jury deliberated for approximately two hours and returned with a "not guilty" verdict appears like the jury reached a not too common "common sense" resolution to this observer.  The jury seemed to resoundingly say, there was nothing wrong with what the trio did.  They allowed a Black man to maintain his dignity by attending his father's funeral and repast sans shackles (reminiscent of slavery) and returned him to jail at the end of the day where he immediately resumed his sentence.

On another level and when divorced from the players, an incredibly interesting paradigmatic conflict is playing itself out here.  Bowman and his co-defendants relied upon an ethic of care in making a judgment that was understood and valued in-community.  Yet, the same decision was reviled in the broader community that privileges an ethic of justice and seems bent on wishing away the very serious racial problems that have resurfaced here in Englewood.

Rather than using the metaphor of the racial litmus test to describe aspects of the Bowman debacle, I choose instead to use the metaphor of the "canary in the mine" conceptualized by Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres.  The Bowman case exemplifies the canary in the following respect: "their [canaries'] distress is the first sign of danger that threatens us all.  It is easy enough to think that when we sacrifice this canary, the only harm is to communities of color.  Yet others ignore problems that converge around racial minorities at their own peril, for these problems are symptoms warning us that we are all at risk."