Published in the Courier News, Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Efforts to force out chief of police are misguided
In an article that appeared in a recent issue of the Courier News, Plainfield Public Safety Director Martin Hellwig attempted to justify the city's proposal to eliminate the office of chief of police.
According to Mr. Hellwig, the city's action is intended to add a level of "performance accountability" he said is mitigated by "an overly protective bubble or shield around the office of the chief of police" that is regulated by New Jersey's "Chiefs' Responsibility Act."
For the record, the Chiefs Responsibility Act cited by Mr. Hellwig requires the chief of police to report to an "appropriate authority" which is defined in the act as the "mayor, manager, or such other appropriate executive or administrative officer, such as a full-time director of public safety." In addition, a police chief reports to the county prosecutor and attorney general.
What then are the potential benefits of replacing a highly experienced, fully sworn and highly accountable law enforcement professional with a politically appointed civilian police director?
We believe Mr. Hellwig's comments validate our belief that the city's action is motivated by politics rather than economics or efficiency.
His characterization of the Chiefs Responsibility Act as "an overly protective bubble" is certainly the way a political operative would view state laws governing the operation of municipal police departments.
The fact is that the law was enacted by our legislature specifically to prevent political interference in the operation of police agencies in New Jersey.
We believe our state's regulatory system over law enforcement is a common-sense approach to keeping politics out of policing.
Undoubtedly, the protections afforded police chiefs under the law may frustrate a few elected officials in their efforts to exert political control over police departments --- but perhaps that was the entire point of the law. If the law does, in fact, create a "protective bubble" as Mr. Hellwig asserts, it can only serve the public interest by insulating the law enforcement function from political interference.
Would the residents of New Jersey want it any other way? Would they want itinerant carpetbaggers and other political operatives in command of their local police departments?
We think the answer to these questions is a resounding "no."
For these reasons, the Union County Police Chiefs Association strongly opposes the City of Plainfield's ongoing efforts to force Chief Edward Santiago out of office. We hope the residents of the "Queen City" will support their police chief by demanding that the city administration discontinue their misguided campaign to force him out of office.
ROBERT QUINLAN
Chief of Police, Hillside
President, Union County Police Chiefs Association
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Santiago - Courier - OpEd: Martyniuk - No basis for eliminating position
Published in the Courier News, Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Speaking Out [OpEd]
No basis for eliminating chief of police position
By ROMAN MARTYNIUK
This is in response to an article which appeared in the Courier News on Jan. 25 regarding the proposed reorganization of the Plainfield police department and the elimination of the position of chief of police.
The council or at least the four members of the seven-member council in attendance passed a resolution that proposes eliminating the office of the chief of police and creating the position of police director.
The ostensible reason for this action, according to statements made by members of the council, was purely a management decision intended to increase the level of accountability. This explanation just doesn't hold water. In fact, notwithstanding the procedural flaws wherein the council failed to notify the public of the proposed resolution, this situation is wrought with so many misrepresentations, inaccuracies and flawed assumptions that it will be difficult to address them all in one letter.
By statute (40A:14-118 aka The Chiefs Responsibility Act) the chief of police, whoever it may be, already is directly accountable at the municipal government level to what is referred to as the appropriate authority (mayor, manager, or such other appropriate executive or administrative officer, such as a full-time director of public safety) and, on a second level, through the law enforcement chain of command to the county prosecutor and the state attorney general.
That same statute clearly defines the various duties and responsibilities of a chief which includes "prescribing the duties and assignments of all subordinates and other personnel." Reference was made to a series of disciplinary actions involving Chief Santiago. This reference is misleading at best. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any suggestion that Chief Santiago has not adequately performed his official police duties.
In fact, crime in Plainfield has decreased significantly under his leadership. The "transgressions" involve his refusal to implement changes in personnel assignments that were directed by the public safety director, even though those directives clearly infringed upon the authority granted to the chief under 40A:14-118. Failure to submit to inappropriate political interference should not be cause for disciplinary actions; to the contrary, it is an act of principle and moral courage that should be applauded.
If the public safety director wants to assume the authority of the chief either directly or through a civilian surrogate, they should apply for admission to the police academy, subject themselves to the many weeks of rigorous training, go out on the streets for 20 years to obtain law enforcement experience, and then compete for promotion against any other eligible senior law enforcement professionals -- not try to usurp the duly granted legal authority of the chief through questionable administrative manipulations.
The proposal to demote the chief and replace him with a police director would add a purely administrative position (with no law enforcement powers or authority) to the municipal payroll without adding or improving any level of management accountability. (An additional financial burden to taxpayers with absolutely no benefit.)
In the interest of full disclosure, I have met Chief Santiago in a professional capacity. We both attended a law enforcement training seminar addressing the prevention of violence in schools and again, at another training program focusing on intelligence-based policing (sponsored by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness.) It should be noted that both these professional development experiences took place subsequent to the filing of the "disciplinary" actions filed against the chief.
In a world in which local police have become increasingly involved in homeland security, anti-terror, anti-gang and emergency response missions, as well as school shooting/school safety issues, it is ever more common and necessary for local police departments to work in partnership with other federal, state, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies. Here the issues of credibility, professional courtesy and security clearances come into play; issues that strongly favor a sworn chief of police over a political appointee. Especially a chief who remains fully dedicated to fulfilling his professional responsibilities despite a disappointing lack of support from certain elected officials.
Roman Martyniuk is public information officer, New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Speaking Out [OpEd]
No basis for eliminating chief of police position
By ROMAN MARTYNIUK
This is in response to an article which appeared in the Courier News on Jan. 25 regarding the proposed reorganization of the Plainfield police department and the elimination of the position of chief of police.
The council or at least the four members of the seven-member council in attendance passed a resolution that proposes eliminating the office of the chief of police and creating the position of police director.
The ostensible reason for this action, according to statements made by members of the council, was purely a management decision intended to increase the level of accountability. This explanation just doesn't hold water. In fact, notwithstanding the procedural flaws wherein the council failed to notify the public of the proposed resolution, this situation is wrought with so many misrepresentations, inaccuracies and flawed assumptions that it will be difficult to address them all in one letter.
By statute (40A:14-118 aka The Chiefs Responsibility Act) the chief of police, whoever it may be, already is directly accountable at the municipal government level to what is referred to as the appropriate authority (mayor, manager, or such other appropriate executive or administrative officer, such as a full-time director of public safety) and, on a second level, through the law enforcement chain of command to the county prosecutor and the state attorney general.
That same statute clearly defines the various duties and responsibilities of a chief which includes "prescribing the duties and assignments of all subordinates and other personnel." Reference was made to a series of disciplinary actions involving Chief Santiago. This reference is misleading at best. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any suggestion that Chief Santiago has not adequately performed his official police duties.
In fact, crime in Plainfield has decreased significantly under his leadership. The "transgressions" involve his refusal to implement changes in personnel assignments that were directed by the public safety director, even though those directives clearly infringed upon the authority granted to the chief under 40A:14-118. Failure to submit to inappropriate political interference should not be cause for disciplinary actions; to the contrary, it is an act of principle and moral courage that should be applauded.
If the public safety director wants to assume the authority of the chief either directly or through a civilian surrogate, they should apply for admission to the police academy, subject themselves to the many weeks of rigorous training, go out on the streets for 20 years to obtain law enforcement experience, and then compete for promotion against any other eligible senior law enforcement professionals -- not try to usurp the duly granted legal authority of the chief through questionable administrative manipulations.
The proposal to demote the chief and replace him with a police director would add a purely administrative position (with no law enforcement powers or authority) to the municipal payroll without adding or improving any level of management accountability. (An additional financial burden to taxpayers with absolutely no benefit.)
In the interest of full disclosure, I have met Chief Santiago in a professional capacity. We both attended a law enforcement training seminar addressing the prevention of violence in schools and again, at another training program focusing on intelligence-based policing (sponsored by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness.) It should be noted that both these professional development experiences took place subsequent to the filing of the "disciplinary" actions filed against the chief.
In a world in which local police have become increasingly involved in homeland security, anti-terror, anti-gang and emergency response missions, as well as school shooting/school safety issues, it is ever more common and necessary for local police departments to work in partnership with other federal, state, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies. Here the issues of credibility, professional courtesy and security clearances come into play; issues that strongly favor a sworn chief of police over a political appointee. Especially a chief who remains fully dedicated to fulfilling his professional responsibilities despite a disappointing lack of support from certain elected officials.
Roman Martyniuk is public information officer, New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Clinton - NY Times - Frank Rich: Billary, Road to GOP Victory
Published in the NY Times, Sunday, January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH
IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.
Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?
Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.
What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.
For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.
Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.
The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.
People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.
“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.
Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.
In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.
Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.
Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.
Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.
That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.
If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Op-Ed Columnist
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH
IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.
Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?
Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.
What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.
For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.
Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.
The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.
People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.
“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.
Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.
In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.
Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.
Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.
Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.
That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.
If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Clinton - NY Times - Gail Collins - Hillary an Obama Girl?
Published in the NY Times, Saturday, January 5, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
What Would Hillary Rodahm Do?
Des Moines
What does Hillary Clinton stand for, if not the spirit of We Can Get Through This?
There she was, taking leave of Iowa at a deeply, deeply depressing post-caucus party Thursday night. On stage, her posse was looking determinedly cheerful, like heroic musketeers before the firing squad: the Los Angeles mayor (Latino), the New York lieutenant governor (black), Madeleine Albright (female) and Terry McAuliffe (white-man money), along with two extremely photogenic little girls and a huge mass of union officials.
Hillary, looking remarkably perky, and Bill, looking remarkably pink, turned their game faces to the cameras.
“This is a great night for Democrats,” the front-runner who came in third announced firmly. “Together, we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning.”
Meanwhile, over on the happy side of town, Barack Obama was telling his ecstatic supporters that they would “be able to look back with pride and say this was the moment when it all began.”
The critical “it” is not really about reforming health care or getting out of Iraq or stopping global warming. We all know there’s only the thinnest of lines between Obama and Clinton on these matters — a line that would instantly be obliterated by the mangle that is known as the United States Congress. “It” is about Barack’s promise to sweep away the old, unlovable red-meat politics and create a nonpartisan “coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”
Which Hillary, veteran of the right-wing-conspiracy wars, regards as a fairy tale.
If Clinton wants to be Franklin (and Eleanor) Roosevelt in this campaign, and John Edwards is channeling William Jennings Bryan, Obama is, for all his early opposition to Iraq, the most conservative visionary in the group. Big change is hardly ever accomplished without political warfare. When the red and blue states join together and all Americans of good will march hand-in-hand to a mutually agreed upon destiny, the place they’re going to end up would probably look pretty much like now with more health insurance.
It’s a mistake to read too much into the Iowa caucuses, in which public-spirited citizens gather together to produce utterly unreliable messages. (At the one I went to, Obama got 129 of 228 voters while Bill Richardson got 45. That translated into one delegate each.)
In a small state where newcomers on the honor system can register as local voters on the spot, it could be easy to turn a mass of out-of-state college students and volunteers into what looks like an uprising of Iowa Youth. Nevertheless, you can’t ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is now the candidate of the aging Democratic establishment whose supporters pray for a low turnout on Election Day. That might get her nominated in the long run, but it is not really the kind of image that makes you go whistling into the election booth.
Somewhere, Senator Edward Brooke must be chortling. You will remember that in 1969 Brooke, a moderate Republican, had the bad luck to be commencement speaker at Wellesley College on the day Hillary Rodham made a name for herself as a voice of her generation. She politely gave the first black American to be elected to the Senate since Reconstruction the back of her hand. “For too long our leaders have used politics as the art of the possible,” she said. (“This is bad?” Brooke must have been thinking.)
It was not actually anything in particular that Brooke and his ilk had done that earned Hillary’s lightly disguised contempt. It was just that they were tired and old and always looking for some way to cut a grubby deal instead of setting their sights on the impossible dream. She and her generation, she said, were “searching for a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.”
Nearly 40 years later, here she is, forged into an architect of the possible by every conceivable kind of political and personal disaster. Campaigning in New Hampshire, she’s warning voters that the guy who is promising to turn the whole process into something that people could actually feel good about is peddling “false hopes.”
Meanwhile Barack Obama gives his folks the ecstatic experience. “They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” he told them Thursday night, creating a patriotic lump in every throat in the room.
How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?
How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him as mortal?
But if she were around right now, Hillary Rodham the commencement speaker would probably be an Obama girl.
[Wellesley College has Hillary Rodham's 1969 Commencement Address archived online here.]
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Op-Ed Contributor
What Would Hillary Rodahm Do?
Des Moines
What does Hillary Clinton stand for, if not the spirit of We Can Get Through This?
There she was, taking leave of Iowa at a deeply, deeply depressing post-caucus party Thursday night. On stage, her posse was looking determinedly cheerful, like heroic musketeers before the firing squad: the Los Angeles mayor (Latino), the New York lieutenant governor (black), Madeleine Albright (female) and Terry McAuliffe (white-man money), along with two extremely photogenic little girls and a huge mass of union officials.
Hillary, looking remarkably perky, and Bill, looking remarkably pink, turned their game faces to the cameras.
“This is a great night for Democrats,” the front-runner who came in third announced firmly. “Together, we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning.”
Meanwhile, over on the happy side of town, Barack Obama was telling his ecstatic supporters that they would “be able to look back with pride and say this was the moment when it all began.”
The critical “it” is not really about reforming health care or getting out of Iraq or stopping global warming. We all know there’s only the thinnest of lines between Obama and Clinton on these matters — a line that would instantly be obliterated by the mangle that is known as the United States Congress. “It” is about Barack’s promise to sweep away the old, unlovable red-meat politics and create a nonpartisan “coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”
Which Hillary, veteran of the right-wing-conspiracy wars, regards as a fairy tale.
If Clinton wants to be Franklin (and Eleanor) Roosevelt in this campaign, and John Edwards is channeling William Jennings Bryan, Obama is, for all his early opposition to Iraq, the most conservative visionary in the group. Big change is hardly ever accomplished without political warfare. When the red and blue states join together and all Americans of good will march hand-in-hand to a mutually agreed upon destiny, the place they’re going to end up would probably look pretty much like now with more health insurance.
It’s a mistake to read too much into the Iowa caucuses, in which public-spirited citizens gather together to produce utterly unreliable messages. (At the one I went to, Obama got 129 of 228 voters while Bill Richardson got 45. That translated into one delegate each.)
In a small state where newcomers on the honor system can register as local voters on the spot, it could be easy to turn a mass of out-of-state college students and volunteers into what looks like an uprising of Iowa Youth. Nevertheless, you can’t ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is now the candidate of the aging Democratic establishment whose supporters pray for a low turnout on Election Day. That might get her nominated in the long run, but it is not really the kind of image that makes you go whistling into the election booth.
Somewhere, Senator Edward Brooke must be chortling. You will remember that in 1969 Brooke, a moderate Republican, had the bad luck to be commencement speaker at Wellesley College on the day Hillary Rodham made a name for herself as a voice of her generation. She politely gave the first black American to be elected to the Senate since Reconstruction the back of her hand. “For too long our leaders have used politics as the art of the possible,” she said. (“This is bad?” Brooke must have been thinking.)
It was not actually anything in particular that Brooke and his ilk had done that earned Hillary’s lightly disguised contempt. It was just that they were tired and old and always looking for some way to cut a grubby deal instead of setting their sights on the impossible dream. She and her generation, she said, were “searching for a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.”
Nearly 40 years later, here she is, forged into an architect of the possible by every conceivable kind of political and personal disaster. Campaigning in New Hampshire, she’s warning voters that the guy who is promising to turn the whole process into something that people could actually feel good about is peddling “false hopes.”
Meanwhile Barack Obama gives his folks the ecstatic experience. “They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” he told them Thursday night, creating a patriotic lump in every throat in the room.
How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?
How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him as mortal?
But if she were around right now, Hillary Rodham the commencement speaker would probably be an Obama girl.
[Wellesley College has Hillary Rodham's 1969 Commencement Address archived online here.]
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Obama - NY Times - Caroline Kennedy Endorsement
Published in the NY Times, Sunday, January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Friday, January 18, 2008
Warwas - Courier - State orders Warwas reinstatement, fine
Published in the Courier News, Wednesday, January 17, 2008
[Board] rules in favor of fired Plainfield health officer
By BRANDON LAUSCH and JARED KALTWASSER
STAFF WRITERS
A state personnel board ruled Wednesday that a former Plainfield health officer, fired on allegations that she worked for another city while on sick leave, should be disciplined and pay a fine equal to the time she was off the job — even though she should return to her post.
Jadwiga Warwas, who appealed her Sept. 11, 2006, firing for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public employee, last month scored a legal victory when a state Office of Administrative Law judge dismissed the charges and ordered Plainfield to reinstate her with full back pay, benefits, pension rights and legal fees.
A health officer in Plainfield earns about $83,700, according to city administrators.
The judge's Dec. 12 decision was forwarded to the Merit System Board, which unanimously opted to modify the earlier ruling by deciding that some disciplinary action — though not removal — was warranted, according to officials.
The five-member panel decided that Warwas should receive an official letter of reprimand and pay a fine equal to the 109 hours she was off the job, said Henry Maurer, director of the state Division of Merit System Practices and Labor Relations.
A written decision explaining the board's stance will be prepared for final approval, likely at its Jan. 30 meeting, Maurer said. Either side in the case then could challenge the decision and seek review before the state Appellate Division.
City Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson said Wednesday he could not comment on the decision because he had not seen it.
According to court papers, Warwas, a licensed physician, developed peptic ulcers and clinical depression because of her tumultuous time in the city — she started her tenure in October 2003 — and took sick leave from late July through early September 2006. On five occasions, Warwas was restricted to home because of her poor health.
While off from work, an anonymous tipster alerted city leaders that Warwas was working part time for Paterson. According to court papers, Paterson officials confirmed the claim, notifying their counterparts in Plainfield that Warwas worked from home as a quality assurance coordinator, logging a total of 109 hours as she collected and disseminated information about infectious diseases.
The sticking point in the case, according to court documents, appears to be Warwas' undisputed failure to submit a written request to continue her work for Paterson before beginning sick leave, despite a Plainfield code at the time of Warwas' hiring that prohibited outside employment without official approval.
Warwas has testified that she was not aware of the requirement and submitted a resume that disclosed her part-time position before taking the job in Plainfield.
Though the city argued that firing Warwas was justified because of her prior disciplinary record — including two suspensions for the confusion surrounding her alleged failure to designate an acting health officer while on vacation in summer 2006 — the administrative law judge ruled that "Warwas did not in any sense fail to comply with the Employee Handbook by not submitting a written application for permission to do what she already had disclosed in 2003."
Brandon Lausch can be reached at (908) 707-3175 or blausch@c-n.com.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
[Board] rules in favor of fired Plainfield health officer
By BRANDON LAUSCH and JARED KALTWASSER
STAFF WRITERS
A state personnel board ruled Wednesday that a former Plainfield health officer, fired on allegations that she worked for another city while on sick leave, should be disciplined and pay a fine equal to the time she was off the job — even though she should return to her post.
Jadwiga Warwas, who appealed her Sept. 11, 2006, firing for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public employee, last month scored a legal victory when a state Office of Administrative Law judge dismissed the charges and ordered Plainfield to reinstate her with full back pay, benefits, pension rights and legal fees.
A health officer in Plainfield earns about $83,700, according to city administrators.
The judge's Dec. 12 decision was forwarded to the Merit System Board, which unanimously opted to modify the earlier ruling by deciding that some disciplinary action — though not removal — was warranted, according to officials.
The five-member panel decided that Warwas should receive an official letter of reprimand and pay a fine equal to the 109 hours she was off the job, said Henry Maurer, director of the state Division of Merit System Practices and Labor Relations.
A written decision explaining the board's stance will be prepared for final approval, likely at its Jan. 30 meeting, Maurer said. Either side in the case then could challenge the decision and seek review before the state Appellate Division.
City Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson said Wednesday he could not comment on the decision because he had not seen it.
According to court papers, Warwas, a licensed physician, developed peptic ulcers and clinical depression because of her tumultuous time in the city — she started her tenure in October 2003 — and took sick leave from late July through early September 2006. On five occasions, Warwas was restricted to home because of her poor health.
While off from work, an anonymous tipster alerted city leaders that Warwas was working part time for Paterson. According to court papers, Paterson officials confirmed the claim, notifying their counterparts in Plainfield that Warwas worked from home as a quality assurance coordinator, logging a total of 109 hours as she collected and disseminated information about infectious diseases.
The sticking point in the case, according to court documents, appears to be Warwas' undisputed failure to submit a written request to continue her work for Paterson before beginning sick leave, despite a Plainfield code at the time of Warwas' hiring that prohibited outside employment without official approval.
Warwas has testified that she was not aware of the requirement and submitted a resume that disclosed her part-time position before taking the job in Plainfield.
Though the city argued that firing Warwas was justified because of her prior disciplinary record — including two suspensions for the confusion surrounding her alleged failure to designate an acting health officer while on vacation in summer 2006 — the administrative law judge ruled that "Warwas did not in any sense fail to comply with the Employee Handbook by not submitting a written application for permission to do what she already had disclosed in 2003."
Brandon Lausch can be reached at (908) 707-3175 or blausch@c-n.com.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
MLK Events - 2008
| MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. :: 2008 EVENTS | |
| TUESDAY · January 15 6:30 PM A Celebration of Dr. King City Hall Library 515 Watchung Avenue Sponsor: NAACP Plainfield Chapter | WEDNESDAY · January 16 11:00 AM Dr. King's Nobel Acceptance Speech Recited by Mr. Colin Baptiste Senior Center, 305 East Front Street Sponsor: Plainfield Senior Citizen Center |
| THURSDAY · January 17 3:30 PM Film: The Story of Ruby Bridges In 1960, 6-year-old Ruby Bridges helped integrate New Orleans schools. Public Library, 8th Street & Park Avenue Sponsor: Plainfield Public Library | FRIDAY · January 18 7:00 - 9:00 PM The Decline of the Black Family Mohawk Lodge #307 1357 West Third Street Sponsor: Mohawk Lodge #307 |
| SUNDAY · January 20 5:00 PM Ecumenical Worship Service Speaker: Bishop George Benbow Ruth Fellowship 733 South Second Street Sponsor: Concerned Urban Clergy | MONDAY · January 21 8:00 AM Annual MLK Breakfast Speaker: Dr. Ron Daniels, 'Achieving the American Dream' PHS Cafeteria $16 / $12 Seniors/Students. Call 756-4663 Sponsor: Frontiers International |
| MONDAY · January 21 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM Harvest Radio Celebration Harvest Radio's Anniversary and Live Remote Celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Kings Temple Ministries 1020 West Seventh Street Sponsor: Kings Temple Ministries | MONDAY · January 21 6:00 PM Citywide Commemoration Speaker: Rev. Dr. James Evans, former President of Colgate-Rochester Divinity School Music by the Freedom Youth Choir Shiloh Baptist Church 515 West 4th Street Sponsor: Shiloh Baptist Church Dr. Gerald Lamont Thomas, Pastor |
To print this calendar for a handy reference, use the version here. | |
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Real Estate- NY Times - Baltimore sues bank over subprime mortgage fees
Published in the NY Times, Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Baltimore is suing bank over foreclosure crisis
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Baltimore’s mayor and City Council are suing Wells Fargo Bank, contending that its lending practices discriminated against black borrowers and led to a wave of foreclosures that has reduced city tax revenues and increased its costs.
The recent surge in homeowner defaults nationwide, generated by lax lending practices during the real estate boom, has officials bracing for a range of problems that often accompany foreclosures. Some municipalities, including Cleveland and Buffalo, are trying to make lenders responsible for abandoned properties to ward off crimes like arson, drug use and prostitution.
But the civil suit that officials in Baltimore are filing in United States District Court may presage another type of litigation against lenders by municipalities facing shortfalls in their budgets.
In the suit, Mayor Sheila Dixon joined with the City Council to ask that the court bar Wells Fargo from charging higher fees to black borrowers. Many of these borrowers paid more under the bank’s subprime lending program, designed for less creditworthy consumers, and are more likely to default on their loans.
In 2006, Wells Fargo made high-cost loans, with an interest rate at least three percentage points above a federal benchmark, to 65 percent of its black customers in Baltimore and to only 15 percent of its white customers in the area, according to the lawsuit. Similarly, refinancings to black borrowers were more likely to be higher cost than to white ones and to carry prepayment penalties.
The complaint requests unspecified damages to cover the diminished property tax revenues and higher costs that the city said it had incurred. Additional costs include those for fire and police protection in hard-hit neighborhoods and expenditures to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties.
Kevin Waetke, a Wells Fargo spokesman, rejected the contention that race was a factor in the bank’s pricing of mortgage loans. “We do not tolerate illegal discrimination against or unfair treatment of any consumer,” Mr. Waetke said. “Our loan pricing is based on credit risk. We are committed to serving all customers fairly — our continued growth depends on it.”
But Suzanne Sangree, chief solicitor for the Baltimore City Law Department, said: “This wave of foreclosures in minority neighborhoods really threatens to undermine the tremendous progress the city has made in developing distressed neighborhoods and moving the city ahead economically. Wells Fargo could do a lot, as well as other banks that have engaged in similar practices, to help to curb the flood of foreclosures that the city is experiencing now.”
Among the practices cited by the city, Wells Fargo allowed mortgage brokers to charge higher commissions when they put borrowers in loans with higher interest rates than the customers qualified for based on their credit profiles. The bank also failed to underwrite mortgage loans to traditional criteria, the suit said, setting up the borrowers for default. Such practices were common at many lenders during the boom.
Now, Baltimore is a city in a foreclosure crisis, according to the complaint. Citing figures from the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, the suit said foreclosure-related events in the city, including notices of default, foreclosure sales and lenders’ purchases of foreclosed properties, rose more than five times between the first and second quarters of 2007.
Wells Fargo has been the largest or second-largest provider of mortgage loans to Baltimore borrowers since 2004, according to the lawsuit. From 2004 through 2006, Wells Fargo made at least 1,285 mortgage loans a year to area residents with a total value of more than $600 million. Wells Fargo now has the largest number of foreclosures in Baltimore of any lender, the suit stated.
Half of the Wells Fargo foreclosures in 2006 occurred in census tracts with populations that were more than 80 percent black, the suit said. Meanwhile, only 16 percent of the foreclosures were found in tracts with populations that are 20 percent or less black. Figures for 2007 were similar, the city said.
John P. Relman, a lawyer at Relman & Dane in Washington, represents the City of Baltimore in its case against Wells Fargo. “Foreclosures have a more profound effect in minority communities because they are closest to the line of distressed neighborhoods in many cities,” Mr. Relman said. “That causes big problems for the cities, not just the lost income from taxes but also the long-term social costs. Programs are going to be needed to stabilize the communities to be rebuilt.”
The Baltimore complaint cited a 2005 study showing that foreclosures required more municipal services and higher costs. The study, commissioned by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation of Minneapolis, identified 26 different costs incurred by government agencies responding to foreclosures in Chicago and in Cook County, Ill., in 2003 and 2004. The analysis concluded that total costs reached $34,199 for each foreclosure.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Baltimore is suing bank over foreclosure crisis
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Baltimore’s mayor and City Council are suing Wells Fargo Bank, contending that its lending practices discriminated against black borrowers and led to a wave of foreclosures that has reduced city tax revenues and increased its costs.
The recent surge in homeowner defaults nationwide, generated by lax lending practices during the real estate boom, has officials bracing for a range of problems that often accompany foreclosures. Some municipalities, including Cleveland and Buffalo, are trying to make lenders responsible for abandoned properties to ward off crimes like arson, drug use and prostitution.
But the civil suit that officials in Baltimore are filing in United States District Court may presage another type of litigation against lenders by municipalities facing shortfalls in their budgets.
In the suit, Mayor Sheila Dixon joined with the City Council to ask that the court bar Wells Fargo from charging higher fees to black borrowers. Many of these borrowers paid more under the bank’s subprime lending program, designed for less creditworthy consumers, and are more likely to default on their loans.
In 2006, Wells Fargo made high-cost loans, with an interest rate at least three percentage points above a federal benchmark, to 65 percent of its black customers in Baltimore and to only 15 percent of its white customers in the area, according to the lawsuit. Similarly, refinancings to black borrowers were more likely to be higher cost than to white ones and to carry prepayment penalties.
The complaint requests unspecified damages to cover the diminished property tax revenues and higher costs that the city said it had incurred. Additional costs include those for fire and police protection in hard-hit neighborhoods and expenditures to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties.
Kevin Waetke, a Wells Fargo spokesman, rejected the contention that race was a factor in the bank’s pricing of mortgage loans. “We do not tolerate illegal discrimination against or unfair treatment of any consumer,” Mr. Waetke said. “Our loan pricing is based on credit risk. We are committed to serving all customers fairly — our continued growth depends on it.”
But Suzanne Sangree, chief solicitor for the Baltimore City Law Department, said: “This wave of foreclosures in minority neighborhoods really threatens to undermine the tremendous progress the city has made in developing distressed neighborhoods and moving the city ahead economically. Wells Fargo could do a lot, as well as other banks that have engaged in similar practices, to help to curb the flood of foreclosures that the city is experiencing now.”
Among the practices cited by the city, Wells Fargo allowed mortgage brokers to charge higher commissions when they put borrowers in loans with higher interest rates than the customers qualified for based on their credit profiles. The bank also failed to underwrite mortgage loans to traditional criteria, the suit said, setting up the borrowers for default. Such practices were common at many lenders during the boom.
Now, Baltimore is a city in a foreclosure crisis, according to the complaint. Citing figures from the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, the suit said foreclosure-related events in the city, including notices of default, foreclosure sales and lenders’ purchases of foreclosed properties, rose more than five times between the first and second quarters of 2007.
Wells Fargo has been the largest or second-largest provider of mortgage loans to Baltimore borrowers since 2004, according to the lawsuit. From 2004 through 2006, Wells Fargo made at least 1,285 mortgage loans a year to area residents with a total value of more than $600 million. Wells Fargo now has the largest number of foreclosures in Baltimore of any lender, the suit stated.
Half of the Wells Fargo foreclosures in 2006 occurred in census tracts with populations that were more than 80 percent black, the suit said. Meanwhile, only 16 percent of the foreclosures were found in tracts with populations that are 20 percent or less black. Figures for 2007 were similar, the city said.
John P. Relman, a lawyer at Relman & Dane in Washington, represents the City of Baltimore in its case against Wells Fargo. “Foreclosures have a more profound effect in minority communities because they are closest to the line of distressed neighborhoods in many cities,” Mr. Relman said. “That causes big problems for the cities, not just the lost income from taxes but also the long-term social costs. Programs are going to be needed to stabilize the communities to be rebuilt.”
The Baltimore complaint cited a 2005 study showing that foreclosures required more municipal services and higher costs. The study, commissioned by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation of Minneapolis, identified 26 different costs incurred by government agencies responding to foreclosures in Chicago and in Cook County, Ill., in 2003 and 2004. The analysis concluded that total costs reached $34,199 for each foreclosure.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Roselle - Ledger - Council committee assigments to victor
Published in the Star-Ledger, Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Roselle mayor extends influence
Committees reflect bigger role for allies
BY CARLY ROTHMAN
Star-Ledger Staff
At Roselle's borough reorganization meeting Friday, Mayor Garrett Smith further increased his influence on the borough agenda when Council President Sally Samuel, a Smith ally, announced committee assignments.
Samuel assigned Smith's two political opponents seats on just two of the five council committees. While the four council members allied with Smith will each serve on multiple committees in 2008, Councilwoman Cecilia Ricks and Councilman Jamel Holley were each assigned to just one committee.
Last year, Smith's three opponents were also assigned to just one committee apiece, but because there were more of them, they were represented on more committees. This year, Smith opponent Clarence Cunningham stepped down and was replaced by Smith supporter Samantha Dow.
Samuel, who is responsible for making committee assignments, said she drew up the lists based on input from the council members, who told her the committees on which they wanted to work on and suggested other committee members with whom they would like to serve.
But Holley and Ricks said the committee assignments are a way of marginalizing their political voice.
"I've sat on various committees in the past, but due to the fact that I'm in the minority sitting on the council, I get less committees," Holley said.
This year, the members of the revenue and finance, human resource and recreation committees will all be Smith allies.
Ricks will serve on the public works committee, along with Sylvia Turnage and Christine Dansereau, while Holley will serve on the public safety committee with Samuel and Dansereau, who also expressed concern over the distribution of committee seats.
"In all fairness to everybody else, not only to the other council members but to me as well, I would prefer to have it equitably distributed," said Dansereau, who will serve on at least three committees.
Carly Rothman may be reached at crothman@starledger.com or (908) 302-1504.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Roselle mayor extends influence
Committees reflect bigger role for allies
BY CARLY ROTHMAN
Star-Ledger Staff
At Roselle's borough reorganization meeting Friday, Mayor Garrett Smith further increased his influence on the borough agenda when Council President Sally Samuel, a Smith ally, announced committee assignments.
Samuel assigned Smith's two political opponents seats on just two of the five council committees. While the four council members allied with Smith will each serve on multiple committees in 2008, Councilwoman Cecilia Ricks and Councilman Jamel Holley were each assigned to just one committee.
Last year, Smith's three opponents were also assigned to just one committee apiece, but because there were more of them, they were represented on more committees. This year, Smith opponent Clarence Cunningham stepped down and was replaced by Smith supporter Samantha Dow.
Samuel, who is responsible for making committee assignments, said she drew up the lists based on input from the council members, who told her the committees on which they wanted to work on and suggested other committee members with whom they would like to serve.
But Holley and Ricks said the committee assignments are a way of marginalizing their political voice.
"I've sat on various committees in the past, but due to the fact that I'm in the minority sitting on the council, I get less committees," Holley said.
This year, the members of the revenue and finance, human resource and recreation committees will all be Smith allies.
Ricks will serve on the public works committee, along with Sylvia Turnage and Christine Dansereau, while Holley will serve on the public safety committee with Samuel and Dansereau, who also expressed concern over the distribution of committee seats.
"In all fairness to everybody else, not only to the other council members but to me as well, I would prefer to have it equitably distributed," said Dansereau, who will serve on at least three committees.
Carly Rothman may be reached at crothman@starledger.com or (908) 302-1504.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Council - Ledger -Gibson to lead, policy changes coming
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, January 4, 2008
Council president sees policy changes in store
PLAINFIELD: Harold Gibson, the new city council president, said he will recommend changes in council policy and procedure to ensure "the public is getting what it pays for" and also will encourage more members to meet with citizens.
Gibson, who was selected to the at-large council seat in August 2006 after council president Ray Blanco died, then elected by voters that November, wasn't specific about what those changes might entail.
In recent months, he has voiced his displeasure about the existing council meeting schedule. In a brief interview yesterday, Gibson said "the potential exists that maybe we don't need to meet as often as we do."
The city's 47,000 residents cannot all attend council meet ings, Gibson said, so he wants to encourage council members to attend neighborhood organization meetings to stay in touch with their constituents.
In terms of change, Gibson said, there are procedures the council has followed for years, some of which have not worked. "There is a tendency to resist change," he said. "My feeling is that to resist change is to set up a recipe for failure. I certainly don't want to do that."
Gibson, who had been Union County public safety director, took over Wednesday as head of the Union County Sheriff's Office new Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gang Reduction unit.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Council president sees policy changes in store
PLAINFIELD: Harold Gibson, the new city council president, said he will recommend changes in council policy and procedure to ensure "the public is getting what it pays for" and also will encourage more members to meet with citizens.
Gibson, who was selected to the at-large council seat in August 2006 after council president Ray Blanco died, then elected by voters that November, wasn't specific about what those changes might entail.
In recent months, he has voiced his displeasure about the existing council meeting schedule. In a brief interview yesterday, Gibson said "the potential exists that maybe we don't need to meet as often as we do."
The city's 47,000 residents cannot all attend council meet ings, Gibson said, so he wants to encourage council members to attend neighborhood organization meetings to stay in touch with their constituents.
In terms of change, Gibson said, there are procedures the council has followed for years, some of which have not worked. "There is a tendency to resist change," he said. "My feeling is that to resist change is to set up a recipe for failure. I certainly don't want to do that."
Gibson, who had been Union County public safety director, took over Wednesday as head of the Union County Sheriff's Office new Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gang Reduction unit.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Thursday, January 03, 2008
PMUA - 2008 Calendar - Garbage and Recycles
To print, click on the small printer icon at the right edge of the graphic BELOW,
in the thin bar at top of calendar that says 'SCRIBD'.
Page one is English, page two is Spanish.
in the thin bar at top of calendar that says 'SCRIBD'.
Page one is English, page two is Spanish.
Council - Courier -Gibson to lead, promises open door
Published in the Courier, Thursday, January 3, 2008
Gibson to lead Plainfield city council; promises open door
By BRANDON LAUSCH
STAFF WRITER
PLAINFIELD — Spreading a message of compromise and open government, Plainfield's new City Council president is pledging to promote public involvement during council meetings in 2008.
Harold Gibson, who won the presidency Tuesday at the city's annual reorganization meeting, predicted a strong working relationship between the council and Plainfield's administration as political leaders continue to review the city's fiscal year 2008 budget.
"The council and mayor's office probably will be able to work very well together," Gibson said Wednesday. "I don't see any particular issues where we'll be like two pieces of sandpaper rubbing against each other."
Gibson, 73, joined the City Council in August 2006, when he was selected by fellow Democrats to replace the late Ray Blanco. He then won the general election three months later to continue serving as an at-large councilman.
Now heading the Union County sheriff's new Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gibson has served as the county's public safety director for the past 10 years. Gibson's 35 years in law enforcement have also included more than two decades with the Newark Police Department and a role as chief of detectives for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.
Gibson — the brother of former Newark Mayor Ken Gibson — also has worked as Plainfield's public safety director and city administrator.
"I don't believe in trying to appeal to or appease to individuals," Gibson said. "I think that we are elected to serve the public, and the public deserves our trust. I believe they will gain our trust as this year goes through ... I believe I have the capability of leading the council in a way that will satisfy the needs of the city as best we can."
Gibson said that means making promises he can keep and and promoting an open-door policy for residents who want to discuss local issues with elected officials. Gibson also said he will champion public input during City Council meetings by giving residents their full allotment of speaking time and researching answers to questions if they can't be provided on the spot.
The new council president added that he might schedule meetings with community groups to get a better handle on residents' concerns.
"We don't work for ourselves," Gibson said. "We work for the 48,000 people (in Plainfield) and I think we should do what we can do to provide legitimate answers — and to give them the services that they're paying for — as best we can."
Although Gibson said it's nice to have a new political title, he said if council members "can't functionally accomplish that which the role requires, then I would think, very frankly, that we're useless."
"And I don't want to wind up in history as going down as that," he said.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Gibson to lead Plainfield city council; promises open door
By BRANDON LAUSCH
STAFF WRITER
PLAINFIELD — Spreading a message of compromise and open government, Plainfield's new City Council president is pledging to promote public involvement during council meetings in 2008.
Harold Gibson, who won the presidency Tuesday at the city's annual reorganization meeting, predicted a strong working relationship between the council and Plainfield's administration as political leaders continue to review the city's fiscal year 2008 budget.
"The council and mayor's office probably will be able to work very well together," Gibson said Wednesday. "I don't see any particular issues where we'll be like two pieces of sandpaper rubbing against each other."
Gibson, 73, joined the City Council in August 2006, when he was selected by fellow Democrats to replace the late Ray Blanco. He then won the general election three months later to continue serving as an at-large councilman.
Now heading the Union County sheriff's new Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gibson has served as the county's public safety director for the past 10 years. Gibson's 35 years in law enforcement have also included more than two decades with the Newark Police Department and a role as chief of detectives for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.
Gibson — the brother of former Newark Mayor Ken Gibson — also has worked as Plainfield's public safety director and city administrator.
"I don't believe in trying to appeal to or appease to individuals," Gibson said. "I think that we are elected to serve the public, and the public deserves our trust. I believe they will gain our trust as this year goes through ... I believe I have the capability of leading the council in a way that will satisfy the needs of the city as best we can."
Gibson said that means making promises he can keep and and promoting an open-door policy for residents who want to discuss local issues with elected officials. Gibson also said he will champion public input during City Council meetings by giving residents their full allotment of speaking time and researching answers to questions if they can't be provided on the spot.
The new council president added that he might schedule meetings with community groups to get a better handle on residents' concerns.
"We don't work for ourselves," Gibson said. "We work for the 48,000 people (in Plainfield) and I think we should do what we can do to provide legitimate answers — and to give them the services that they're paying for — as best we can."
Although Gibson said it's nice to have a new political title, he said if council members "can't functionally accomplish that which the role requires, then I would think, very frankly, that we're useless."
"And I don't want to wind up in history as going down as that," he said.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Passports - Courier - USPS sets Passport Fair
Published in the Courier, Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Passport Fair set to help residents
Changes in travel requirements have significantly increased the number of passport applications. It is estimated that demand for passports will grow from 12 million to 17 million by 2008.
To make it more convenient for the public to apply for a passport, Plainfield postal officials are holding a special Passport Fair from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Jan. 26 at Plainfield High School, 950 Park Ave.
The Passport Fair is a passport acceptance opportunity with dedicated staffing on hand specifically devoted to passport acceptance.
"Although walk-ins are welcome, we suggest making an appointment," Acting Postmaster Michael Deignan said. "Give Pat Hembree a call at (908) 731-4393, and we would be glad to set up an appointment."
Deignan also offers these tips when applying for a passport:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Passport Fair set to help residents
Changes in travel requirements have significantly increased the number of passport applications. It is estimated that demand for passports will grow from 12 million to 17 million by 2008.
To make it more convenient for the public to apply for a passport, Plainfield postal officials are holding a special Passport Fair from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Jan. 26 at Plainfield High School, 950 Park Ave.
The Passport Fair is a passport acceptance opportunity with dedicated staffing on hand specifically devoted to passport acceptance.
"Although walk-ins are welcome, we suggest making an appointment," Acting Postmaster Michael Deignan said. "Give Pat Hembree a call at (908) 731-4393, and we would be glad to set up an appointment."
Deignan also offers these tips when applying for a passport:
- Bring proper proof of American citizenship or naturalization. This must be either: a state-issued certified birth certificate; a previous official passport; or a naturalization certificate, if you are foreign-born. (Please note: a hospital-issued birth certificate is not acceptable.)
- Bring in one officially acceptable state or government photo ID. This can be either a driver's license, a military photo ID or a state-issued photo ID. Workplace IDs and regular photos are generally not acceptable.
- The passport application requires two recent identical photographs. The photos must meet specific passport requirements which are explained at http://travel.state.gov/passport. (Photos can be taken at the Plainfield Passport Fair for an additional fee.)
- To save time, download passport application documents at www.usps.com/passport and fill out beforehand. However, don't sign the application form, as the passport acceptance clerk must witness the signing.
- For children under age 14, both parents' consent and proof of parental relationship are required. See Special Requirements for children under age 14 at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html for details.
-- Staff report
- Courier: "Passport Fair set for residents"
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)