Published in the Courier News, Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Plainfield official lobbying to close boarding facility
Assemblyman cites development, funding issues in council meeting talks
By CELANIE POLANICK
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- On West Seventh Street, when the mentally disabled residents of the Park Hotel Boarding Home have nowhere else to go, they walk down the street and wander in and out of stores all day, Assemblyman Jerry Green said.
Green, D-Plainfield, visited the City Council meeting Monday night to seek support for his efforts to lobby the state Department of Community Affairs not to renew the Park Hotel's operating license. As federal and state funding sources for social services dry up, Plainfield's lower real estate prices are part of what's making the city a magnet for people who need extra help and the agencies who serve them -- including those who aren't from Plainfield, Green said Monday afternoon.
This trend has financial consequences for the city, from reducing tax revenues to dampening the success of local businesses, he said.
"We're trying to move the city in a new direction," Green said. "We're trying to be very positive toward the redevelopment of the downtown area."
The 182-bed residential facility is run by a for-profit company, Plainfield Hotel LLC; representatives of the company did not return a phone call Monday for comment. The facility does not have any unresolved violations with the DCA, DCA spokesman Chris Donnelly said.
The facility is in the heart of Plainfield's downtown, across the street from a redevelopment zone. It hasn't been upgraded in 30 years, and the residents have no place to spend time other than their rooms or the streets of the city, Green said.
"These people have no recreational grounds," Green said. "The businesses in the community complain about the fact of them not having a social area or an area to congregate. They often spend their time in the different stores, just wandering ... They have no other place to go. ... This is no direct attack on anyone. I'm obligated as an elected official to make sure that these people are given what I consider quality housing."
Green also wants to push for restrictions on allowing additional facilities such as the Park Hotel Boarding Home to come to Plainfield, because they create additional need for emergency services and police intervention. Last year, Muhlenberg Hospital lost $9 million in costs of treatment for people who couldn't pay for it, Green said.
"Not only are we talking about a quality of life issue, we're talking about the city no longer being able to subsidize the services that go with a facility of this nature," he said.
Generally, the council seems to share Green's concerns, but the issue is still in the discussion phase, Councilman Rashid Burney said before the meeting.
Although the Park Hotel is a for-profit business, numerous nonprofit organizations similar to it don't pay property taxes, thereby reducing the city's number of taxable properties, Burney said.
However, there isn't much the city can do legally to force the facility to close or move, or to stop new ones from moving in; the state calls them "inherently beneficial uses," and the city has little regulatory power over them, Burney said.
As the cost of operating these homes rises, the city may be asked to foot the bill -- and that's too much to ask, Burney said. Last year in August, a halfway house run by the city with funds from Middlesex and Union counties was short $56,000 -- costs had gone up, but the funding hadn't, Burney said. When the figure ended up on the city's budget, the council had to say no to it, he said.
"I certainly want to help the disadvantaged members of society," Burney said. "I just feel that at this point, we've got more than our share. Per capita, we've got more than any of the other municipalities around us. We certainly want to take care of our own -- we just don't have the resources right now to take care of everybody else's."
Celanie Polanick can be reached at (908) 707-3137 or cpolanick@c-n.com
Link to online story.
(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, May 22, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Needle Exchange - Courier - Plainfield Fails To Join
Published in the Courier News, Monday, May 14, 2007
5 cities to try needle exchange
Seven eligible cities have no plans to implement contentious program
By GREGORY J. VOLPE
Gannett State Bureau
TRENTON -- Five of the 12 eligible cities have applied to the state Department of Health and Senior Services to begin pilot needle exchange programs.
Up to six municipalities could receive permission to start needle exchange programs -- hoped to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases among intravenous drug users -- provided they exceed certain statistics: 350 residents with HIV/AIDS and a prevalence rate attributable to drug use of more than 300 per 100,000 residents.
Of the 12 cities that meet the criteria, Camden and Atlantic City, which have long sought exchange programs, applied, along with Newark, Paterson and Trenton. Asbury Park, New Brunswick, Plainfield, East Orange, Elizabeth, Irvington and Jersey City did not.
"It's been a battle, so we're glad to see it," said Ron Cash, director of Atlantic City's Health Department.
The law took a contentious and uncertain route. In 2004, then-Gov. James E. McGreevey signed an executive order permitting pilot programs in three cities, but a month before programs were to start in Atlantic City and Camden, an appeals court ruled the spread of AHDS was not an emergency and said exchange programs needed legislative approval.
Despite some delays in the Senate, where Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Newark, was a staunch critic with a key committee vote, the measure was signed into law in December. By the end of the summer there could be up to five programs in New Jersey -- the last state to have any sort of needle exchange program.
Camden's program will begin once the state approves its program, which is expected to occur by the end of June.
"It's going to be crucial to saving lives of injection drug users," said Jose Quann, program coordinator of the Camden Area Health Education Center. "It's going to affect the community at large where contaminated needles wouldn't be discarded all over the city. Injection drug users will have access to sterile syringes that they might not get infected or infect their loved ones."
Critics, however, say the programs is akin to government-sanctioned drug use and that taxpayer dollars should only be used for treatment and recovery. To garner support, lawmakers tacked on $10 million for addiction services as part of the legislation.
"Most cities understand that the exchange of free needles is a national movement to legalize drugs, but more importantly, they know they bring about more problems through crime, gang banging and other kinds of criminal justice problems," said Rice, a former Newark police officer.
Roseanne Scotti, director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said the programs will work in New Jersey without the rise in crime that critics predict. Some cities that didn't apply are waiting to see how the programs do before starting their own, Scotti said.
One of the eligible cities that didn't apply is Asbury Park. Among the 25 cities with the most cases of HIV/AIDS in New Jersey, it has the smallest population but the highest percentage of residents living with the disease.
Ed Higgins, president and executive director of JSAS HealthCare, which treats substance abuse in the city, said those statistics are misleading because the city's population is so small.
Plus, a combination of factors such as more education about the risks of sharing dirty needles and a purer heroin that has fewer people shooting up, Higgins said, have already reduced the number of new cases.
"We pretty much test all of the patients that come in for treatment here," Higgins said. "And we've only had two new positives in the last two and a half years, which is great news compared to what was going on years ago."
The health commissioner will report to the Legislature in five years whether the program should become permanent and possibly expanded.
Link to online story.
(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.)
5 cities to try needle exchange
Seven eligible cities have no plans to implement contentious program
By GREGORY J. VOLPE
Gannett State Bureau
TRENTON -- Five of the 12 eligible cities have applied to the state Department of Health and Senior Services to begin pilot needle exchange programs.
Up to six municipalities could receive permission to start needle exchange programs -- hoped to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases among intravenous drug users -- provided they exceed certain statistics: 350 residents with HIV/AIDS and a prevalence rate attributable to drug use of more than 300 per 100,000 residents.
Of the 12 cities that meet the criteria, Camden and Atlantic City, which have long sought exchange programs, applied, along with Newark, Paterson and Trenton. Asbury Park, New Brunswick, Plainfield, East Orange, Elizabeth, Irvington and Jersey City did not.
"It's been a battle, so we're glad to see it," said Ron Cash, director of Atlantic City's Health Department.
The law took a contentious and uncertain route. In 2004, then-Gov. James E. McGreevey signed an executive order permitting pilot programs in three cities, but a month before programs were to start in Atlantic City and Camden, an appeals court ruled the spread of AHDS was not an emergency and said exchange programs needed legislative approval.
Despite some delays in the Senate, where Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Newark, was a staunch critic with a key committee vote, the measure was signed into law in December. By the end of the summer there could be up to five programs in New Jersey -- the last state to have any sort of needle exchange program.
Camden's program will begin once the state approves its program, which is expected to occur by the end of June.
"It's going to be crucial to saving lives of injection drug users," said Jose Quann, program coordinator of the Camden Area Health Education Center. "It's going to affect the community at large where contaminated needles wouldn't be discarded all over the city. Injection drug users will have access to sterile syringes that they might not get infected or infect their loved ones."
Critics, however, say the programs is akin to government-sanctioned drug use and that taxpayer dollars should only be used for treatment and recovery. To garner support, lawmakers tacked on $10 million for addiction services as part of the legislation.
"Most cities understand that the exchange of free needles is a national movement to legalize drugs, but more importantly, they know they bring about more problems through crime, gang banging and other kinds of criminal justice problems," said Rice, a former Newark police officer.
Roseanne Scotti, director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said the programs will work in New Jersey without the rise in crime that critics predict. Some cities that didn't apply are waiting to see how the programs do before starting their own, Scotti said.
One of the eligible cities that didn't apply is Asbury Park. Among the 25 cities with the most cases of HIV/AIDS in New Jersey, it has the smallest population but the highest percentage of residents living with the disease.
Ed Higgins, president and executive director of JSAS HealthCare, which treats substance abuse in the city, said those statistics are misleading because the city's population is so small.
Plus, a combination of factors such as more education about the risks of sharing dirty needles and a purer heroin that has fewer people shooting up, Higgins said, have already reduced the number of new cases.
"We pretty much test all of the patients that come in for treatment here," Higgins said. "And we've only had two new positives in the last two and a half years, which is great news compared to what was going on years ago."
The health commissioner will report to the Legislature in five years whether the program should become permanent and possibly expanded.
Link to online story.
(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.)
Legislature - Jerry Green - Bill supports very-low-income housing
*
Published in the Star Ledger, Friday, May 11, 2007
Bill advances to earmark very-low-income housing
Legislation that would set aside at least 25 percent of affordable housing built in New Jersey for families attempting to live on very low incomes was approved by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee yesterday.
"More than 1 million New Jersey families don't earn enough to afford the rent on an average two-bedroom apartment in the state," said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex), a co-sponsor. "This bill will ensure that we set aside enough quality housing for New Jersey's most vulnerable families."
About 75 affordable housing activists lobbied legislators at the Statehouse to approve the measure. The legislation (A1343), which would amend the state's "Fair Housing Act," moves to the full Assembly for consideration.
According to a 2006 study by the nonprofit Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, the average cost to rent a two-bedroom apartment is $1,058, requiring a family to earn more than $43,000 to meet the standard that the cost of their rent does not exceed one-third of their income.
Link to online story.
(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.)
Published in the Star Ledger, Friday, May 11, 2007
Bill advances to earmark very-low-income housing
Legislation that would set aside at least 25 percent of affordable housing built in New Jersey for families attempting to live on very low incomes was approved by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee yesterday.
"More than 1 million New Jersey families don't earn enough to afford the rent on an average two-bedroom apartment in the state," said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex), a co-sponsor. "This bill will ensure that we set aside enough quality housing for New Jersey's most vulnerable families."
About 75 affordable housing activists lobbied legislators at the Statehouse to approve the measure. The legislation (A1343), which would amend the state's "Fair Housing Act," moves to the full Assembly for consideration.
According to a 2006 study by the nonprofit Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, the average cost to rent a two-bedroom apartment is $1,058, requiring a family to earn more than $43,000 to meet the standard that the cost of their rent does not exceed one-third of their income.
Link to online story.
(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, May 04, 2007
Planning Board Consultant - 2007 - Remington and Vernick
*
Published in PoliticsPA, Thursday, February 23, 2006
(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.)
Published in PoliticsPA, Thursday, February 23, 2006
NJ Style Pay to Play
Comes to Newtown and Lower Makefield
TO: All Media
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 23, 2006
CONTACT: Robert L. Ciervo (215) 932-3200
NEWTOWN, PA -- Last evening at a televised Newtown Township Board of Supervisors meeting Robert Ciervo, a Newtown Township resident for over 25 years, provided information concerning past ethical and criminal complaints against the newly appointed Township Engineers, Remington and Vernick of Haddonfield, NJ.
He cited a June 20, 2005 New Jersey Courier-Post article by Erik Schwartz which stated "In 1998 ELEC (the Election Law Enforcement Comission of New Jersey) collected a $16,900 fine from Remington and Vernick Engineers Inc. of Haddonfield after it admitted to illegally funneling money to Democrats in Gloucester Township and Voorhees through two PACs the firm set up to circumvent limits on contributions." Ciervo also went on to read information from a Consent Order and Final Decision of ELEC which stated that Remington and Vernick were guilty of violating state campaign finance laws in 1993, 1995, 1996 and originally were charged $36,000 of total fines on 15 different counts.
He then asked the Board of Supervisors if any of the members were aware of these past violations of campaign finance law. Ciervo also asked the Chair of the Board, how it came to hire Remington and Vernick and who introduced this New Jersey-based firm whose office of operation is 40 miles from Newtown, to the Supervisors. Chairman Anne Goren refused to answer any of Ciervo's questions. She refused to give even a yes or no answer as to whether she knew of the violations of state campaign laws. He was perplexed as to why a town in Bucks County would hire an engineering firm in [New Jersey].
After giving the Board an adequate amount of time to respond Ciervo speculated as to how Remington and Vernick were hired. "In October and November of 2005 the municipal services contracts of Newtown and Lower Makefield were up for sale", he stated. He went on to add that on 10/11/05 Craig Remington, Vice President of Remington and Vernick, donated $1,000 to the Newtown Democrats who paid for much of the campaign expenses for the campaign of Phil Calabro for Supervisor. Phil Calabro is presently the Chairman of the Newtown Democrats.
He further added that on 10/18/05 Craig Remington donated $7,000 to the Bucks County Democratic Committee; and on that same day, 10/18/05, the Bucks County Democratic Committee donated $2,000 to the Newtown Democrats; and on 10/18/05 the Bucks County Democratic Committee donated $2,000 to Smith and Caiola for Supervisor.
Additionally he noted that on 11/9/05 (one day after the November election) Thomas Rospos of Belmar, NJ (the President of Birdsall Engineering Firm of Burlington, NJ) donated $5,000 to the Bucks County Democratic Committee.
Ciervo went on to wonder aloud: So what were the results of these donations?
On 1/6/06 Democrats Phil Calabro and Jerry Schenkman voted for Remington, Vernick and Beach to be the professional engineering firm of Newtown Township. Obviously before this meeting they agreed to not renew the contract of the former engineering firm Pennoni and Associates.
On 2/1/06, Democrats Greg Caiola and Ron Smith voted for Remington and Vernick to be the sewer engineering firm for Lower Makefield Township.
On 2/1/06, Democrats Greg Caioloa and Ron Smith voted for Birdsall Engineering to be the environmental engineering firm for Lower Makefield Township.
He concluded his remarks by expressing his disappointment at how his hometown, the town where he grew up and went to school from kindergarten through high school was sold to the highest bidder by New Jersey politicians.
Ciervo added today, "While the Newtown Board of Supervisors will not tell the public how they came to hire a New Jersey based engineering firm, it is important to note that new Lower Makefield Supervisor Greg Caiola was on the Ewing Township council in New Jersey in the late 1990s. It is interesting to note that the current township engineering firm in Ewing is also Remington and Vernick."
So why won't Vice Chairman Phil Calabro tell the public who introduced him to Craig Remington? Did Greg Caiola orchestrate a deal whereby if Mr. Remington donated to the Newtown Democrats that his company would earn the engineering contract? Or did Bucks County Democratic Chairman John Cordisco arrange for Mr. Remington to make a large donation to the county party with assurances that if the Democratic candidates in Newtown and Lower Makefield won, Remington and Vernick would earn a piece of the pie?
Ciervo also has investigated the campaign finance reports of Caiola and Smith and noted 2 unsual donations totaling $4,000. The first is a donation made on 10/31/05 reportedly by IBEW-COPE located on 900 Seventh Street in Washington, D.C. A check of IBEW-COPE's campaign finance reports on record with the Federal Election Commission reveals no donation to Caiola and Smith for Supervisor. The second donation made on 12/12/05 was from the newly formed PAC "Yardley-Makefield Democratic Victory Fund". As of 2/23/06 this group has failed to file the appropriate report to indicate from where they received $3,000 in donations. They have already been fined over $350 by the Bucks County Board of Elections for submitting late reports and failing to file the appropriate report.
So the question remains as to who donated these donations totalling $4,000? Did they come from Craig Remington? Did he instruct Caiola and Smith to set up another PAC to channel money into their campaigns like he did in Gloucester and Voorhees in the 1990s?
It appears that if New Jersey pay-to-play politics is now in place in Newtown and Lower Makefield. Part of Mr. Calabro's pledge to Newtown that he had printed in the Newtown Advance before the November election read "You will never have to suspect our decisions or choices."
It seems as if less than 2 months into his tenure many Newtown Township and Lower Makefield residents are suspecting that professional services contracts may have been prearranged before they even were able to cast their vote.
###
(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, April 26, 2007
Schools - Muhlenberg - Assemblyman Green - CN
*
Published in the Courier News on July 7, 2003
Link to online story.
(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.)
Published in the Courier News on July 7, 2003
http://www.c-n.com/news/c-n/story/0,2111,761007,00.html
Proposals could save Muhlenberg
and build new schools
By BERNICE PAGLIA
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- A pair of proposals have been announced that could save Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center, build a new middle school and help bolster a West End neighborhood.
The proposals were announced last week, and one already has support from hospital officials and Assemblyman Jerry Green.
The other proposal needs support from both the City Council and Board of Education and would link private development with planned school facilities to enhance a West End neighborhood.
The planned middle school is part of both proposals, but school board president Robert Darden said the board as a whole hasn't discussed either.
Two state programs are involved in the proposals. Green said Thursday talks have begun with Gov. James E. McGreevey and state agencies on a "school renaissance Zone" plan that would put the new middle school on the Muhlenberg campus and bring in as much as $150 million to modernize the hospital and retire its $24 million debt.
The "demonstration project" proposal is a chance to have the middle school, a new administration building and a private project fast-tracked for construction, Epic Group vice president Joel Lizotte told the council.
The school board held a series of community talks last year on where to put the new middle and elementary schools. Only the middle school site, on South Second Street between Plainfield and Grant avenues, won board approval in January.
The district received state approval two years ago for $185 million in new school construction, including the middle school, four new elementary schools, replacement of two elementary schools and renovations to 10 schools.
Donald Moore, a city resident who is in charge of design and construction for Abbott districts in the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, said four or five projects could be under construction next year.
Work has begun on a "swing school" in a four-story building on West Front Street where students could go while their schools are being replaced. Clinton School students will be the first to use it while their school is demolished and a new one is built, he said.
Moore said the school construction can leverage other kinds of development in the city. He called Green's bid to link the middle school with saving Muhlenberg "a brilliant move on his part."
The South Second Street site would require land acquisition and a cleanup that Moore said has been stalled, even though the city received $1 million to do it. Using the hospital campus, or adjacent school-owned land at Hub Stine Field, might be easier.
Mayor Albert T. McWilliams, a board member at Muhlenberg, said the hospital told the board about the proposal at a briefing Wednesday in advance of Green's announcement.
On the other proposal, McWilliams said he asked his staff to get more information on the pediatric day-care facility suggested as a part of the demonstration project and to clarify what the city would have to do to take part.
McWilliams said that if the school board decides to build the middle school at Muhlenberg, the city could keep South Second Street for industrial use to bring in taxes. But he said the community also should have a say.
"If the community has bought into a particular scenario, you'd have to go back to the community and get a consensus," he said.
But Green said Thursday, "If you're going to save a community institution, who's going to challenge that?"
The hospital also has been seeking state permission for a cardiac surgery unit to bolster its viability. Green said when he became ill after a hectic primary election, the need for such a facility came home to him. He said he had his son drive him to a full cardiac care facility in Newark, where he had angioplasty surgery to repair a blocked artery.
"My mind is made up," Green said. "I'm not getting involved with local officials. If I can't put this proposal together, Muhlenberg is heading toward getting closed."
Bernice Paglia can be reached at (908) 707-3137 or bpaglia@c-n.com.
[Sidebar]At a glance:
* School renaissance zone: A state-designated locale for revitalization through coordinated planning of state agencies with a school facilities project eligible for state support as its focal point.
Gov. James E. McGreevey announced in March that revitalization of a former factory in Trenton would be the first school renaissance zone. The former Roebling steel rope facility will become a school for grades K-8 and will complement existing neighborhood revitalization. In April, McGreevey announced the second zone in Neptune. There, an abandoned warehouse will become an early childhood center to complement a 700-student school for grades K-8.
The Plainfield proposal would link a new middle school with revitalization of Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center.
* Demonstration project: Includes an Abbott district school facility and community design features and is tied to local redevelopment. The Plainfield proposal includes a new administration building and middle school already approved for state school facilities funding. The proposal also includes an "academic walkway" linking Washington Elementary and Hubbard Middle schools and could be tied to a privately developed day-care facility for children up to age 4 who have chronic health conditions. Thirty districts are eligible to submit proposals by July 31, and six will be chosen. Designation would speed up construction.
Link to online story.
(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.)
Schools - SL - SCC's final cut for construction
Table from the 4/26/2007 Star-Ledger detailing SCC construction plans. Click on image to enlarge for printing.
Schools - CN - Green proposes school for Muhlenberg site
http://www.c-n.com/news/c-n/story/0,2111,869579,00.html
[Muhlenberg – Schools]
School planned for Muhlenberg site
By CHAD WEIHRAUCH, Staff Writer
Published in the Courier News on Sunday, December 14, 2003
PLAINFIELD -- Details slowly are emerging on a $60 million plan that would place an elementary school on the grounds of Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center.
Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, said he is still negotiating with the state to deliver the funds, but said the package would swing money to both the district -- which needs a new school -- and the financially ailing hospital.
"This is needed," Green said. "Right now Muhlenberg is losing six to eight million (dollars) a year."
One of the primary reasons the hospital struggles to survive, Green added, is that it treats a high number of illegal immigrants and the state will not reimburse Muhlenberg for the money it spends on those patients.
Meant primarily to upgrade equipment at the medical center, Green said the funds would be earmarked for current facilities and services, and perhaps could help the hospital back away from efforts to secure permission for a regional cardiac surgery center."The reality is that may not happen," he said, adding that he is "also hoping that we can get the (state) Department of Health to partner up Muhlenberg with one of the hospitals that do offer open-heart surgery."
Muhlenberg is one of three Central Jersey hospitals seeking state permission for the cardiac unit, along with Trinitas Hospital in Elizabeth and Somerset Medical Center in Somerville.
Green said keeping Muhlenberg open and viable is the No. 1 priority.
"The money is a pressing need right now," he said. "Even the $60 million is not going to bail them out."
Mark Hendrickson, a spokesman for the medical center's parent company, Solaris Health System, said he could offer no specifics on the elementary school plan, adding that it has "been on the table since late summer."
"We always look for ways, obviously, to bring the best health care to residents, so we're always open to looking at other options," he said.
Hendrickson said he was unaware of any connection between the elementary school plan and Muhlenberg's cardiac unit bid.
Exact details of the school proposal remain unclear, though Green said it's probable that the hospital would construct a parking deck to clear space for the school.
"This would be a home run for the city because we wouldn't have to take any property off the tax rolls to build a new elementary school," he said.
Chad Weihrauch can be reached at (908) 707-3137 or cweihrau@gannett.com
Friday, April 20, 2007
Letter to Mayor Robinson-Briggs concerning 'Plainfield Gazette' flyer
April 19, 2007
Hon. Sharon Robinson-Briggs, Mayor
City of Plainfield
515 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, NJ 07060
Dear Mayor Robinson-Briggs:
Attached please find a copy of a flyer by the "Plainfield Gazette" found on the literature table in the rotunda of City Hall on Thursday, April 19, 2007, and reportedly circulated throughout City Hall and City Hall Annex.
What concerns me in writing you is not the errors of fact concerning myself, but the use of the word 'faggot' as an epithet and that the materials were placed and circulated in public buildings.
Have people learned nothing from the recent Don Imus episode? The "F" word is as derogatory as the "N" word and can be characterized as hate speech -- totally inappropriate for distribution in a public building.
Secondly, this kind of speech cannot but make a hostile work environment for those many gay and lesbian employees of the City of Plainfield who can now expect it to be used against them if they exercise their First Amendment rights in a way that displeases the anonymous author(s) of this diatribe.
Lastly, there was an episode of distribution in City Hall of a leaflet under this heading ("Plainfield Gazette") during the primary campaign in May of 2005, in which you were running against then Mayor Al McWilliams.
At that time, it was suspected that the materials had been prepared by a city employee on a city computer and run off on a city color copier. Though the McWilliams administration was not able to identify the person or persons who published that particular flyer, further flyers did not appear once employees learned the administration was investigating the matter.
It would be reassuring if you communicated to all employees through an official letter that you consider such language hate speech and that it is never appropriate for City employees to use it. It would also be reassuring to learn that you are having the production and distribution of this flyer looked into, with an eye to determining if it was produced by a city employee or employees or if city equipment was used in its production or distribution.
Sincerely,
Dan Damon
CC:
Dan Williamson, Corporation Counsel
Marc Dashield, City Administrator
Courier News
Star-Ledger
News 12 NJ
PoliticsNJ
Garden State Equality
Plainfield Area Equality
Hon. Sharon Robinson-Briggs, Mayor
City of Plainfield
515 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, NJ 07060
Dear Mayor Robinson-Briggs:
Attached please find a copy of a flyer by the "Plainfield Gazette" found on the literature table in the rotunda of City Hall on Thursday, April 19, 2007, and reportedly circulated throughout City Hall and City Hall Annex.
What concerns me in writing you is not the errors of fact concerning myself, but the use of the word 'faggot' as an epithet and that the materials were placed and circulated in public buildings.
Have people learned nothing from the recent Don Imus episode? The "F" word is as derogatory as the "N" word and can be characterized as hate speech -- totally inappropriate for distribution in a public building.
Secondly, this kind of speech cannot but make a hostile work environment for those many gay and lesbian employees of the City of Plainfield who can now expect it to be used against them if they exercise their First Amendment rights in a way that displeases the anonymous author(s) of this diatribe.
Lastly, there was an episode of distribution in City Hall of a leaflet under this heading ("Plainfield Gazette") during the primary campaign in May of 2005, in which you were running against then Mayor Al McWilliams.
At that time, it was suspected that the materials had been prepared by a city employee on a city computer and run off on a city color copier. Though the McWilliams administration was not able to identify the person or persons who published that particular flyer, further flyers did not appear once employees learned the administration was investigating the matter.
It would be reassuring if you communicated to all employees through an official letter that you consider such language hate speech and that it is never appropriate for City employees to use it. It would also be reassuring to learn that you are having the production and distribution of this flyer looked into, with an eye to determining if it was produced by a city employee or employees or if city equipment was used in its production or distribution.
Sincerely,
Dan Damon
CC:
Dan Williamson, Corporation Counsel
Marc Dashield, City Administrator
Courier News
Star-Ledger
News 12 NJ
PoliticsNJ
Garden State Equality
Plainfield Area Equality
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Plainfield Gazette attacks Damon, McWilliams, Saturdays and Truth
Did I leave anything out? You'll have to read the anonymous broadside yourself. It was circulated at City Hall and City Hall Annex Thursday, April 19, 2007. Click on the image to enlarge it for printing. -- Dan
Monday, April 09, 2007
McWilliams - News Obituary - Courier
*
Published in the Courier News, Saturday, April 7, 2007
'His heart was with Plainfield'
Renal cancer claims former mayor Albert T. McWilliams
By CHAD HEMENWAY
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- Albert T. McWilliams, a former two-term mayor of the Queen City whose personality inspired others to help revitalize the city, died early Friday morning. He was 53.
"I remember a soft-spoken man who had the ability to influence and get people to rally around his cause," said Freeholder Adrian Mapp, a former city councilman.
McWilliams died at St. Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick after a brief battle with renal cancer, his friends and family said. McWilliams, a corporate lawyer for Engelhard, now BASF, in the Iselin section of Woodbridge, is survived by his wife of 25 years, Darlene, and five children.
"His heart was with Plainfield," said Councilman Rashid Burney. "He got the city back up and running."
Dan Damon, the city's public information officer during McWilliams' tenure, said his old boss was diagnosed with cancer several months ago. Damon said McWilliams wanted to keep news of his illness among close friends and family.
Former campaign chairwoman Rebecca Williams described McWilliams as a family man who was "funny, intense and charismatic."
Many officials contacted Friday did not know McWilliams was sick. The Rev. Rick Taylor, who was Plainfield's mayor from 1984-89, called the Courier News newsroom to confirm McWilliams' death and offer his condolences. Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, who defeated McWilliams in November 2005, said she was "shocked and surprised" at the news.
"My sympathy goes out to his family," Robinson-Briggs said. "The city will do whatever we need to do to honor him."
Even Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, once an ally of McWilliams who turned his support to Robinson-Briggs in her contest with McWilliams, said McWilliams "was a champion in moving the city ahead." Green said he now supports many of McWilliams' initiatives as well as councilpeople whom McWilliams played a large role in getting elected -- those of the "New Democrats."
"I'd like him to know that what he did for the city was appreciated, because it was," Green said. "Plainfield is better because of him."
McWilliams, first elected mayor in 1997, was described as a man who "believed in the human spirit" -- a "people's person" much less concerned with taking part in politics than his commitment to the people of Plainfield.
Supporters of McWilliams credit him for ridding the city of political bickering, restoring the Queen City's infrastructure and laying foundations for redevelopment while involving the community in the planning process.
"For 25 years this place was stagnant. The 80s and early 90s passed the city by," Damon said. "Plainfield was a totally underdeveloped town. People came and went and broke their vows of getting things started. Nobody could get it done, but he (McWilliams) found a way."
Many agreed McWilliams' legacy will be the Park-Madison complex on West Front Street that used to house Tepper's department store. McWilliams also had roads resurfaced and began a streetscape project. Others credited the former mayor with ridding the city of trash and crime.
"He turned around a city that was in a downward spiral and those who now serve after him have a foundation to build upon," said Mapp, who served as president of the McWilliams' New Democrats -- a group which includes current councilpeople Rayland Van Blake, Cory Storch, Linda Carter and Don Davis.
"He started my political career," Storch said. "I ran for office because he inspired me to get involved. Instead of focusing on politics, he focused on his vision for a better city."
That vision would apparently keep McWilliams up late at night, said Burney.
"He was a tireless worker," Burney said. "I'd get e-mails from him. I'd look and they'd be from 2 or 3 a.m. He's say, 'I just had to get those ideas down.' That was just Al."
After losing his re-election bid in the June 2005 primary to Robinson-Briggs, McWilliams switched his political affiliation to become a Republican, but wasn't allowed on the ticket. He later ran as a write-in and was defeated.
Storch said McWilliams was "more than a little disappointed" at losing, but "backed off gracefully."
McWilliams "fought the good fight in the face of the entrenched machine," said Williams. Just a week ago, she and McWilliams looked back at his time as mayor.
"I think he was proud of what he set in motion," Williams said. "When we were campaigning, we knew the odds but he was always upbeat in spite of them. Even when we lost, he said, 'It's not over. We'll continue to fight for this city.'"
Chad Hemenway can be reached at (908) 707-3148 or chemenway@gannett.com
Link to online story.
(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.)
Published in the Courier News, Saturday, April 7, 2007
'His heart was with Plainfield'
Renal cancer claims former mayor Albert T. McWilliams
By CHAD HEMENWAY
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- Albert T. McWilliams, a former two-term mayor of the Queen City whose personality inspired others to help revitalize the city, died early Friday morning. He was 53.
"I remember a soft-spoken man who had the ability to influence and get people to rally around his cause," said Freeholder Adrian Mapp, a former city councilman.
McWilliams died at St. Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick after a brief battle with renal cancer, his friends and family said. McWilliams, a corporate lawyer for Engelhard, now BASF, in the Iselin section of Woodbridge, is survived by his wife of 25 years, Darlene, and five children.
"His heart was with Plainfield," said Councilman Rashid Burney. "He got the city back up and running."
Dan Damon, the city's public information officer during McWilliams' tenure, said his old boss was diagnosed with cancer several months ago. Damon said McWilliams wanted to keep news of his illness among close friends and family.
Former campaign chairwoman Rebecca Williams described McWilliams as a family man who was "funny, intense and charismatic."
Many officials contacted Friday did not know McWilliams was sick. The Rev. Rick Taylor, who was Plainfield's mayor from 1984-89, called the Courier News newsroom to confirm McWilliams' death and offer his condolences. Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, who defeated McWilliams in November 2005, said she was "shocked and surprised" at the news.
"My sympathy goes out to his family," Robinson-Briggs said. "The city will do whatever we need to do to honor him."
Even Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, once an ally of McWilliams who turned his support to Robinson-Briggs in her contest with McWilliams, said McWilliams "was a champion in moving the city ahead." Green said he now supports many of McWilliams' initiatives as well as councilpeople whom McWilliams played a large role in getting elected -- those of the "New Democrats."
"I'd like him to know that what he did for the city was appreciated, because it was," Green said. "Plainfield is better because of him."
McWilliams, first elected mayor in 1997, was described as a man who "believed in the human spirit" -- a "people's person" much less concerned with taking part in politics than his commitment to the people of Plainfield.
Supporters of McWilliams credit him for ridding the city of political bickering, restoring the Queen City's infrastructure and laying foundations for redevelopment while involving the community in the planning process.
"For 25 years this place was stagnant. The 80s and early 90s passed the city by," Damon said. "Plainfield was a totally underdeveloped town. People came and went and broke their vows of getting things started. Nobody could get it done, but he (McWilliams) found a way."
Many agreed McWilliams' legacy will be the Park-Madison complex on West Front Street that used to house Tepper's department store. McWilliams also had roads resurfaced and began a streetscape project. Others credited the former mayor with ridding the city of trash and crime.
"He turned around a city that was in a downward spiral and those who now serve after him have a foundation to build upon," said Mapp, who served as president of the McWilliams' New Democrats -- a group which includes current councilpeople Rayland Van Blake, Cory Storch, Linda Carter and Don Davis.
"He started my political career," Storch said. "I ran for office because he inspired me to get involved. Instead of focusing on politics, he focused on his vision for a better city."
That vision would apparently keep McWilliams up late at night, said Burney.
"He was a tireless worker," Burney said. "I'd get e-mails from him. I'd look and they'd be from 2 or 3 a.m. He's say, 'I just had to get those ideas down.' That was just Al."
After losing his re-election bid in the June 2005 primary to Robinson-Briggs, McWilliams switched his political affiliation to become a Republican, but wasn't allowed on the ticket. He later ran as a write-in and was defeated.
Storch said McWilliams was "more than a little disappointed" at losing, but "backed off gracefully."
McWilliams "fought the good fight in the face of the entrenched machine," said Williams. Just a week ago, she and McWilliams looked back at his time as mayor.
"I think he was proud of what he set in motion," Williams said. "When we were campaigning, we knew the odds but he was always upbeat in spite of them. Even when we lost, he said, 'It's not over. We'll continue to fight for this city.'"
Chad Hemenway can be reached at (908) 707-3148 or chemenway@gannett.com
Link to online story.
(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.)
McWilliams - News Obituary - Ledger
Published in the Star-Ledger, Saturday, April 7. 2007
Albert McWilliams, ex-Plainfield mayor
Lawyer led a downtown renaissance in city
BY JOE RYAN
Star-Ledger Staff
Albert T. McWilliams, a soft- spoken corporate attorney who rapidly ascended through the bare- knuckled ranks of Plainfield politics and served eight years as the city's mayor before losing a bitter election in 2005, died yesterday at St. Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick.
He was 53.
The cause was cancer of the kidneys, which had been diagnosed several months ago, said his wife, Darlene McWilliams, 52.
A native of Georgia and father of five, McWilliams moved in 1987 to Plainfield, a once-prosperous city left scarred by the riots and urban flight of the 1960s. He fell in love with the town's elegant Victorian homes and majestic trees, and in 1996 friends encouraged him to run for city council.
"He really cared deeply for Plainfield, and he wanted to rescue the city from its downward spiral and decay," said Adrian Mapp, a Union County freeholder and friend of McWilliams.
With strong backing from Plainfield's Democratic Committee, the articulate and debonair McWil liams won an at-large seat. The next year, he ran successfully for mayor.
Over the next eight years, McWilliams oversaw a small renaissance in downtown Plainfield, where new offices, stores and apartments rose for the first time in decades. But crime, especially murders, remained a vexing problem.
By his second term, McWilliams had fallen from favor with the city's most powerful Democrat, Assemblyman Jerry Green. When McWil liams tried for a third term, Green backed his own candidate, a school board member named Sharon Robinson-Briggs.
Robinson-Briggs coasted to vic tory, and McWilliams stepped away from politics.
Yesterday, Green saluted his former rival.
"There were times we didn't see eye-to-eye, but he did move Plainfield in a positive direction. I think the city is a better place became of Al McWilliams," Green said.
Born in Atlanta, McWilliams was the youngest of three children. His father, Albert T. McWilliams Sr., was among the first black bus drivers hired after the city's historic bus boycott. His mother was a den tal assistant.
After studying public administration and political science at Georgia State University, McWil liams earned a law degree from the University of Michigan.
He moved to Dallas and be came a lawyer for Diamond Sham rock, an oil company.
It was at a Super Bowl party in 1979 or 1980 that McWilliams caught the eye of Darlene Crow, a 26-year-old runway model.
She liked his Calvin Klein jeans and well-trimmed afro. He called her a few days later. And for the next 45 consecutive days, they met for picnics, walks and horseback rides.
They married in 1982 in the backyard of the bride's parents' home in Gurdon, Ark.
McWilliams took a job with Engelhard in 1987, and the family moved to New Jersey.
Once he became mayor of Plainfield, McWilliams set out to redevelop long-vacant properties in the city's downtown and recruited some 500 residents to help draft a long-term plan to cut crime, bolster economic development and spruce up flagging streets.
With Green's support, he won re-election in 2001. Then the alliance crumbled.
McWilliams dismissed a political ally of Green's from city hall. The assemblyman accused the mayor of blaming him for the city's woes. And a political war erupted.
Despite his measured and courteous demeanor, McWilliams was no pushover. Between 2002 and 2004, he backed five victorious council candidates against Green's hopefuls. In 2003, the mayor won control of the city's Democratic committee.
Then came the election of 2005.
In an effort to preserve Green's authority in Plainfield, the powerful Union County Democratic Committee donated $65,000 to Robinson-Briggs' campaign. She sailed to victory.
At the urging of supporters, McWilliams registered as a Republican and challenged Robinson- Briggs in the general election.
It proved a luckless gamble in a town as Democratic as Plainfield.
McWilliams took the loss hard.
"Politics in New Jersey is a blood sport. This is not a gentleman's game, and he was a gentleman," said Dan Damon, McWil liams' former spokesman and longtime friend.
The loss, however, gave McWil liams more time for his passions: fishing with his children, riding his bicycle, reading his four daily newspapers and tending racks of mes quite-smoked ribs on his barbecue, wearing his beloved royal-blue Williams-Sonoma apron.
McWilliams is survived by his wife; mother Annie Ruth McWil liams, of Atlanta; and children Annie, 22; Allison, 18, Albert T. III, 16; Adam, 14; Avery, 12; and two sisters.
The family was still planning fu neral arrangements last night.
Link to online story.
(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, April 07, 2007
Ex-Plainfield mayor dies - PoliticsNJ - 4/6/2007
Published in Politics NJ, Friday, April 6, 2007
Ex-Plainfield Mayor dies
By Editor - April 6, 2007 - 10:41am
Former Plainfield Mayor Albert McWilliams passed away early this morning after a battle with renal cancer.
McWilliams was elected Mayor in 1997 and re-elected in 2001. In 2005, he lost his bid for a third term, losing to Sharon Robinson-Briggs by about 300 votes in the Democratic primary after losing the support of the Union County Democratic organization. He later switched to the Republican Party and ran as a write-in candidate. Funeral arrangements are pending.
"Al McWilliams was a man who cared much more about the people of Plainfield than about politics," said Union County GOP Chairman Phil Morin. "He was a man with vision and hope for the City of Plainfield, and he worked tirelessly to make that vision a reality. Plainfield's renaissance is due in large part to his efforts.""
COMMENTS:
He will Be missed
Submitted by walkdown on April 6, 2007 - 2:43pm.
Albert was a good Mayor who took a pragmatic approach to government. He well be missed.
A Super Individual
Submitted by PoliticsSJ on April 6, 2007 - 3:25pm.
Al was a gentle man who had great ideas for Plainfield, and was cut loose by the democrats when he wouldn't play their game. He kept his integrity to the end. Al could teach all politicians what it means to have integrity. God Bless the McWilliams family."
Link to online story.
(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.)
*
Ex-Plainfield Mayor dies
By Editor - April 6, 2007 - 10:41am
Former Plainfield Mayor Albert McWilliams passed away early this morning after a battle with renal cancer.
McWilliams was elected Mayor in 1997 and re-elected in 2001. In 2005, he lost his bid for a third term, losing to Sharon Robinson-Briggs by about 300 votes in the Democratic primary after losing the support of the Union County Democratic organization. He later switched to the Republican Party and ran as a write-in candidate. Funeral arrangements are pending.
"Al McWilliams was a man who cared much more about the people of Plainfield than about politics," said Union County GOP Chairman Phil Morin. "He was a man with vision and hope for the City of Plainfield, and he worked tirelessly to make that vision a reality. Plainfield's renaissance is due in large part to his efforts.""
COMMENTS:
He will Be missed
Submitted by walkdown on April 6, 2007 - 2:43pm.
Albert was a good Mayor who took a pragmatic approach to government. He well be missed.
A Super Individual
Submitted by PoliticsSJ on April 6, 2007 - 3:25pm.
Al was a gentle man who had great ideas for Plainfield, and was cut loose by the democrats when he wouldn't play their game. He kept his integrity to the end. Al could teach all politicians what it means to have integrity. God Bless the McWilliams family."
Link to online story.
(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, March 31, 2007
DWI - Ledger - Councilman Davis
*
Published in the Star-Ledger, Saturday, March 31, 2007
Police arrest Plainfield councilman in DWI case
Plainfield Councilman Don Davis was arrested Wednesday night at the wheel of his car for driving while intoxicated, police said.
Officers arrested Davis at 7:35 p.m. in front of the 100 block of West Front Street. Police did not release details surrounding the incident, although officers at the scene said Davis was cooperative, according to Police Chief Edward Santiago.
Reached by phone yesterday, Davis said he will contest the charge, but had no further comment. Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Plainfield) said, "We shouldn't say anything negative because the councilman, like everyone else, deserves his day in court."
Davis has represented the city's 3rd Ward since his election in 2004. His colleagues recently selected him as chairman of the [committee of] the whole, to lead the council's agenda-setting sessions.
No link to online story, this item appeared in the print edition only.
(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.)
Published in the Star-Ledger, Saturday, March 31, 2007
Police arrest Plainfield councilman in DWI case
Plainfield Councilman Don Davis was arrested Wednesday night at the wheel of his car for driving while intoxicated, police said.
Officers arrested Davis at 7:35 p.m. in front of the 100 block of West Front Street. Police did not release details surrounding the incident, although officers at the scene said Davis was cooperative, according to Police Chief Edward Santiago.
Reached by phone yesterday, Davis said he will contest the charge, but had no further comment. Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Plainfield) said, "We shouldn't say anything negative because the councilman, like everyone else, deserves his day in court."
Davis has represented the city's 3rd Ward since his election in 2004. His colleagues recently selected him as chairman of the [committee of] the whole, to lead the council's agenda-setting sessions.
No link to online story, this item appeared in the print edition only.
(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, March 23, 2007
Execcutive Privilege - Editor & Publisher - Tony Snow's 1998 OpEd
Published in Editor & Publisher, Wednesday, March 21, 2007
UPDATE:
Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now
-- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era
By E&P Staff
Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET udpated 3:30 PM ET
NEW YORK -- With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.
Glenn Greenwald, who now blogs for Salon, has located a Snow column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from March 29, 1998, back in his days as a newspaper pundit. Snow wrote then:
Find this article online.
Link to online story.
(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.)
UPDATE:
Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now
-- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era
By E&P Staff
Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET udpated 3:30 PM ET
NEW YORK -- With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.
Glenn Greenwald, who now blogs for Salon, has located a Snow column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from March 29, 1998, back in his days as a newspaper pundit. Snow wrote then:
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.At his press briefing today, Snow was asked about all this. The exchange follows.
"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."
Questioner: So Tony, back when President Clinton was citing executive privilege to keep internal deliberations in that White House from being talked about in Congress, you wrote now famously that --
MR. SNOW: I'm glad it was famous. I didn't get that kind of coverage at the time. (Laughter.)
Questioner: It's become more famous --
MR. SNOW: Oh, is it making its way through the left-wing blog?
Questioner: It is.
(Laughter.)
Questioner: No, no. But you spoke -- you wrote quite eloquently about this. You said, "Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold the chief executive accountable."
MR. SNOW: Right.
Questioner: "We would have a constitutional right to a cover-up."
MR. SNOW: Right. Now let me --
Questioner: So why were you wrong then and right now?
MR. SNOW: Because you're -- this is a not entirely analogous situation. I just told you what we have in fact offered to make available to members of Congress. What we are doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisers and the president, and that is pretty standard practice in White Houses. But again --
Questioner: It wasn't with the Clinton administration.
MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not so sure. And I'll let others do the legal arguing on that.
Find this article online.
Link to online story.
(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.)
Execcutive Privilege - ThinkProgress - Tony Snow's 1998 OpEd
Published in ThinkProgress.org, Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Filed under: Administration, Ethics
Posted by Nico March 21, 2007 10:06 am
Link to online story.
(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.)
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.Snow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one. The leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court found that executive privilege is sharply limited:
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
Filed under: Administration, Ethics
Posted by Nico March 21, 2007 10:06 am
Link to online story.
(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, March 11, 2007
Crime - Ledger - Farmer: Rise in violent crime predictable
Published in the Star-Ledger, Sunday, January 14, 2007
OpEd
Rise in violent crime was predictable
BY JOHN FARMER JR.
More than 100 people were murdered in Newark last year. Many more were shot at, mugged or robbed. Nor was Newark's record-setting violent crime wave an isolated event. In large cities all over the country, violent crime rose last year for the second straight year, reversing a long-standing trend toward safer streets.
If 2006 was the year in which, abroad, the failure of our Iraq strategy became clear, it was also the year in which, at home, the failure of our law enforcement strategy be came painfully obvious.
More disturbing than the news that violent crime is increasing, however, was government's reaction to it. The Department of Justice expressed its concern about the sharp rise in homicides and robberies nationwide, and reassured the public that its ongoing study of crime trends in 18 cities will help determine "what is causing this increase" and "which crime-fighting efforts are most effective." Gov. Jon Corzine, in his State of the State address, decried the "scourge" of "guns and gang violence," and called for a "comprehensive approach for prevention, enforcement and prisoner re- entry."
News reports have ascribed the increase in urban violence to various causes: a spike in the number of men between the ages of 20 and 24; an increased use of firearms in urban settings to settle disputes; the growing prevalence of gangs; the diversion of law enforcement resources to the prevention of terrorist activity. In a fit of misplaced nostalgia, even New Jersey's success in curbing the practice of racial profiling is now cited by some as leading to the increase in urban violence by allowing guns into Newark. (How this accounts for the rise in violence in cities like Washington, Norfolk, Atlanta, Miami and others is an unanswerable mystery to these folks.)
What has gone unreported, however, is the extent to which the increase in violent crime was not only predictable but actually predicted, a direct if unintended consequence of our anti-crime policies of recent years.
When Justice Department bureaucrats are finished "studying" the problem -- as though the more than 100 murder victims in Newark last year were the subjects of some laboratory experiment -- I think they'll conclude that the problem may -- just may -- be related directly to two government policies of the past 15 years: the subjection of violent offenders to mandatory minimum terms of incarceration with no programs in place to as sure that they will be rehabilitated; and the practice of housing gang members together in our prisons to avoid prison violence.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, as a consequence in part of the crack epidemic and in part of the adverse publicity surrounding certain judges' decisions in criminal cases that were deemed to be too lenient, legislatures across the country, including Congress, began to pass so-called mandatory minimum statutes. These statutes removed discretion from judges by requiring defendants who were convicted under their provisions to serve a prescribed amount of time in prison.
By the mid- to late 1990s, as increasing numbers of violent offenders were convicted and sentenced in accordance with these tougher laws, a remarkable thing began to occur: The crime rate began to plummet. The suspicion long held by those of us in law enforcement -- that the vast majority of serious crime is committed by relatively few people -- seemed confirmed. Violent crime reached historic lows every year I served as attorney general; the streets of New Jersey had not been so free of violent crime since the riots of 1967.
There were, however, clouds on the horizon. First, the influx of violent offenders in prisons from rival gangs caused a potential security problem within the prisons. As gang members intermingled behind bars, there weren't many choruses of "Kumbaya" being sung. So corrections officials decided that, to maintain peace in our prisons, they would house gang members together, and separate the gang populations from each other. The fact that this practice could actually strengthen the social structure of gangs in the community was deemed less important than maintaining riot-free prisons.
The other cloud on the horizon was the fact that the vast majority of offenders sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprison ment would some day be returned to the community. Unless a violent offender was convicted of a crime requiring life in prison, at some point -- usually 10 to 15 years after incarceration -- he or she would be released. Given when most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed, that meant that beginning in 2005 or so, tens of thousands of violent offenders would be released, and would re- enter society.
Four years ago, with crime rates remaining at historic lows, former Public Advocate Stanley Van Ness and I co-chaired a series of roundtable discussions designed to build awareness among law enforcement policymakers of the impending problem. New Jersey, we warned, would be releasing more than 70,000 people from state prison alone over the next five years, with virtually nothing in place to assure that they would commit no further crimes upon their release. The re sult, given that the only social structure available to many urban inmates was the gang structure, could be a catastrophic increase in violent crime.
Our efforts were mirrored around the country in states like Michigan, Florida and Kansas; the problem of re-entry was truly a national problem.
We were encouraged, at first, by the government's reaction. We had active participation from both state and federal law enforcement, from the criminal defense bar and from social scientists. All professed to see the problem coming. A succession of governors and their staffs, like Corzine last week, have all "said the right things" about re-entry.
It is fair to ask, however, in light of the grim homicide statistics in Newark from 2005 and 2006: What has anyone in the government actually done over the past four years?
In a word, nothing.
The Legislature created a Sentencing Commission to study mandatory minimum statutes. A draft executive order making re-entry a priority has languished now through three years and as many governors. The virtues of various pilot programs have been debated; none has been implemented. Typical government glad-handing and lip service. Nothing.
With the hundred-plus homicides last year in Newark, and violent crime now rising all over the country, the long-dreaded day is upon us, and the Justice Department is going to study it. They'll get back to us, we're told, when they've figured out the cause.
Great. But do we really have to study this problem in order to address it? What do you think will happen if you take a violent offender, lock him up for 10 or 15 years, give him no social structure but a gang, and then turn him loose into society with nothing in place to discourage a return to violent behavior? Do you really need a "study" to figure out that the gang problem is in many respects a re- entry problem, or that -- quite apart from gangs -- anyone leaving prison after an extended term faces an enormous adjustment?
There are probably no less-sym pathetic claimants to the state's budget dollars than incarcerated felons. But the social cost of allowing violent offenders to drift through our prisons with no strategy to improve their conduct when they are released may well be incalculable.
Corzine's call for a comprehensive strategy to address the re- entry issue is encouraging. I hope his staff develops one, and I hope it involves actual contact with actual inmates. I hope he highlights it in his budget address and proposes funding it generously. Even more, I hope he goes beyond symbolism and process to the realization that he must act decisively and immediately. The government -- both state and federal -- must actually do something, and do it now.
In the meantime, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is right not to wait for the state and the feds. He's right to launch his own re-entry effort, with particular focus on juvenile offenders. He knows all too well that the problem is no longer about what will happen in four or five years when tens of thousands of inmates are released. They are coming out now. They are here.
Tragically, for people in cities across the country, and for more than 100 people in Newark last year, the time to act was yesterday.
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general and special counsel to the 9/11 commission, teaches national security law at Rutgers University Law School.
Link to online story.
(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.)
*
OpEd
Rise in violent crime was predictable
BY JOHN FARMER JR.
More than 100 people were murdered in Newark last year. Many more were shot at, mugged or robbed. Nor was Newark's record-setting violent crime wave an isolated event. In large cities all over the country, violent crime rose last year for the second straight year, reversing a long-standing trend toward safer streets.
If 2006 was the year in which, abroad, the failure of our Iraq strategy became clear, it was also the year in which, at home, the failure of our law enforcement strategy be came painfully obvious.
More disturbing than the news that violent crime is increasing, however, was government's reaction to it. The Department of Justice expressed its concern about the sharp rise in homicides and robberies nationwide, and reassured the public that its ongoing study of crime trends in 18 cities will help determine "what is causing this increase" and "which crime-fighting efforts are most effective." Gov. Jon Corzine, in his State of the State address, decried the "scourge" of "guns and gang violence," and called for a "comprehensive approach for prevention, enforcement and prisoner re- entry."
News reports have ascribed the increase in urban violence to various causes: a spike in the number of men between the ages of 20 and 24; an increased use of firearms in urban settings to settle disputes; the growing prevalence of gangs; the diversion of law enforcement resources to the prevention of terrorist activity. In a fit of misplaced nostalgia, even New Jersey's success in curbing the practice of racial profiling is now cited by some as leading to the increase in urban violence by allowing guns into Newark. (How this accounts for the rise in violence in cities like Washington, Norfolk, Atlanta, Miami and others is an unanswerable mystery to these folks.)
What has gone unreported, however, is the extent to which the increase in violent crime was not only predictable but actually predicted, a direct if unintended consequence of our anti-crime policies of recent years.
When Justice Department bureaucrats are finished "studying" the problem -- as though the more than 100 murder victims in Newark last year were the subjects of some laboratory experiment -- I think they'll conclude that the problem may -- just may -- be related directly to two government policies of the past 15 years: the subjection of violent offenders to mandatory minimum terms of incarceration with no programs in place to as sure that they will be rehabilitated; and the practice of housing gang members together in our prisons to avoid prison violence.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, as a consequence in part of the crack epidemic and in part of the adverse publicity surrounding certain judges' decisions in criminal cases that were deemed to be too lenient, legislatures across the country, including Congress, began to pass so-called mandatory minimum statutes. These statutes removed discretion from judges by requiring defendants who were convicted under their provisions to serve a prescribed amount of time in prison.
By the mid- to late 1990s, as increasing numbers of violent offenders were convicted and sentenced in accordance with these tougher laws, a remarkable thing began to occur: The crime rate began to plummet. The suspicion long held by those of us in law enforcement -- that the vast majority of serious crime is committed by relatively few people -- seemed confirmed. Violent crime reached historic lows every year I served as attorney general; the streets of New Jersey had not been so free of violent crime since the riots of 1967.
There were, however, clouds on the horizon. First, the influx of violent offenders in prisons from rival gangs caused a potential security problem within the prisons. As gang members intermingled behind bars, there weren't many choruses of "Kumbaya" being sung. So corrections officials decided that, to maintain peace in our prisons, they would house gang members together, and separate the gang populations from each other. The fact that this practice could actually strengthen the social structure of gangs in the community was deemed less important than maintaining riot-free prisons.
The other cloud on the horizon was the fact that the vast majority of offenders sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprison ment would some day be returned to the community. Unless a violent offender was convicted of a crime requiring life in prison, at some point -- usually 10 to 15 years after incarceration -- he or she would be released. Given when most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed, that meant that beginning in 2005 or so, tens of thousands of violent offenders would be released, and would re- enter society.
Four years ago, with crime rates remaining at historic lows, former Public Advocate Stanley Van Ness and I co-chaired a series of roundtable discussions designed to build awareness among law enforcement policymakers of the impending problem. New Jersey, we warned, would be releasing more than 70,000 people from state prison alone over the next five years, with virtually nothing in place to assure that they would commit no further crimes upon their release. The re sult, given that the only social structure available to many urban inmates was the gang structure, could be a catastrophic increase in violent crime.
Our efforts were mirrored around the country in states like Michigan, Florida and Kansas; the problem of re-entry was truly a national problem.
We were encouraged, at first, by the government's reaction. We had active participation from both state and federal law enforcement, from the criminal defense bar and from social scientists. All professed to see the problem coming. A succession of governors and their staffs, like Corzine last week, have all "said the right things" about re-entry.
It is fair to ask, however, in light of the grim homicide statistics in Newark from 2005 and 2006: What has anyone in the government actually done over the past four years?
In a word, nothing.
The Legislature created a Sentencing Commission to study mandatory minimum statutes. A draft executive order making re-entry a priority has languished now through three years and as many governors. The virtues of various pilot programs have been debated; none has been implemented. Typical government glad-handing and lip service. Nothing.
With the hundred-plus homicides last year in Newark, and violent crime now rising all over the country, the long-dreaded day is upon us, and the Justice Department is going to study it. They'll get back to us, we're told, when they've figured out the cause.
Great. But do we really have to study this problem in order to address it? What do you think will happen if you take a violent offender, lock him up for 10 or 15 years, give him no social structure but a gang, and then turn him loose into society with nothing in place to discourage a return to violent behavior? Do you really need a "study" to figure out that the gang problem is in many respects a re- entry problem, or that -- quite apart from gangs -- anyone leaving prison after an extended term faces an enormous adjustment?
There are probably no less-sym pathetic claimants to the state's budget dollars than incarcerated felons. But the social cost of allowing violent offenders to drift through our prisons with no strategy to improve their conduct when they are released may well be incalculable.
Corzine's call for a comprehensive strategy to address the re- entry issue is encouraging. I hope his staff develops one, and I hope it involves actual contact with actual inmates. I hope he highlights it in his budget address and proposes funding it generously. Even more, I hope he goes beyond symbolism and process to the realization that he must act decisively and immediately. The government -- both state and federal -- must actually do something, and do it now.
In the meantime, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is right not to wait for the state and the feds. He's right to launch his own re-entry effort, with particular focus on juvenile offenders. He knows all too well that the problem is no longer about what will happen in four or five years when tens of thousands of inmates are released. They are coming out now. They are here.
Tragically, for people in cities across the country, and for more than 100 people in Newark last year, the time to act was yesterday.
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general and special counsel to the 9/11 commission, teaches national security law at Rutgers University Law School.
Link to online story.
(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, March 08, 2007
A sermon by Plainfielder John Hartman - On the Anglican Communion and gays in the Church
Some of you know that Dan is an Episcopalian and that the worldwide Anglican Communion is in great turmoil over participation by gays in the ministry of the church and in whether the church should bless same-sex unions.
What follows is a sermon preached by Plainfielder John Hartman, an old friend, whom many of you may know as a founder of FOSH (Friends of Sleepy Hollow). In the early 1980s, John and I were among the founders of RSVP, Plainfield's first organization of gays and lesbians.
John is in his second year of seminary and looks forward to ordination to the priesthood at the end of 2008. The sermon was preached yesterday in the Chapel of St. John the Divine at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, the home of Northwestern University. The PRIMATES referred to in the sermon are the archbishops who lead the Church in each country or Province of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion has approximately 77 million adherents worldwide, next in size among Christian bodies to the Roman Catholic Church.
+ Grace, mercy, and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Good morning sisters and brothers in Christ.
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking."
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Jesus said this because a mother asked him to place her one son on his left and her other son on his right. Jesus responds however, saying that it was not his to do. As I read this Gospel reading from Matthew the one thing that resonated with me was this line, this short sentence.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I felt drawn to this line, these eight words, because many years ago I was asked to join Christ at his side and where I thought the only answer I could give him was:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
"Being part of the Anglican Communion is very important to me," said The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, Bishop of New York and former Dean of Seabury, "but if the price of that is I have to turn my back on the gay and lesbian people who are part of this church and part of me I won't do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"In recent times, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure," said Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies**, debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all.
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"The Gospel summons us to a unified effort against the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, and the degradation of women and children," said The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, and yet he continued, "the Primates behave as though quashing dissent on issues of human sexuality were the central calling of the Christian faith.
"Under no circumstances will I support a moratorium on the consecration of individuals living in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy and under no circumstances will I enforce a ban on the blessing of same sex unions."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
More than 42 years ago I began asking -- discerning -- what I believed was a call to ordained ministry. I was a senior in high school, quite active in my church, St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania. My pastor, the Rev. Alfred Sandrock, who just died a few weeks ago, asked if I might be interested in becoming a pastor. He made me quite a proposition, saying that he knew there was scholarship money available to cover most of my undergraduate and seminary work. He even hinted that he could get me into Franklin and Marshall College -- F&M -- in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Following F&M he said, it would be easy to enroll in the Lancaster Theological Seminary. Both F&M and the Seminary were and still are affiliated with the United Church of Christ.
Needless to say his encouragement gave me reason for serious pause. But, at the time I knew something that Pastor Sandrock didn't. I knew that I was queer. I use that word intentionally because in the mid-60s the word gay was not part of our vocabulary, and the word queer was used in its most derogatory sense. And, in the mid-late 60s, a queer man from a conservative small town in Pennsylvania Dutch Country was not encouraged at all to aspire to any ministry of any church that I knew.
At this time the United Church of Christ was less than 10 years old, resulting from a merger of the Congregational Christian Church and the much more conservative branch, of which I was a member, the Evangelical & Reformed. Then, the United Church of Christ was not the inclusive and liberal church it is today.
So although Rev. Sandrock encouraged and pursued me, I found myself incapable of saying to him:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I walked away from any further conversations about becoming a minister. I walked away because I was scared about being found out that I was queer. I was 17 years old and scared to death about my future. Scared about how my family and community would react to learning of my sexual orientation.
"It has always seemed to me that if we accept gay and lesbian people as full partners in our church we have to be consistent on matters of marriage and clergy," said The Rt. Rev. William Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. "We can't advocate two classes of church citizenship: one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals. Church unity is important but you can't compromise on basic principles of conscience. I'm not willing to do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
Nothing sums up my own feelings about the Primates communiqué more than what was said by The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Dean and President of the Episcopal Divinity School, who said … "Enough is enough. If the Anglican Communion must separate over this fundamental issue of human rights, then so be it."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
For me the issue boils down to inclusiveness … human rights … social justice … sexual equality, and my sheer inability to compromise on those issues.
I am 59 years old, I had built up a good career over the last 35 years before coming to Seabury, and I had a comfortable lifestyle. But Christ called. Christ calling me said, John, you've been ignoring me too long, you've pushed me aside just too many times.
The first time Christ called, some 42 years ago, I walked away from him. I walked away in shame for who I was. I walked away scared of how I might be treated. I walked away from Christ and my own cross. I said:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Now Christ, who stayed with me and always stays with us; Christ, who never gives up on us; Christ, who only sees us in love; has again asked me to stand with him at the cross. And this time I will not walk away.
I wonder now, What are you going to do? Are you going to stand with Christ in this season of Lent getting ready to follow him to the cross? Are you going to say, like so many in our church are saying, "Enough is enough, I will not compromise on the vital issues of human rights, social justice, and sexual equality."
Allow me to be bold and probably presumptuous and ask you to join Christ and me at the cross and say to the primates.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
By the Grace of God. Amen.
**The House of Deputies, composed of lay and clerical (non-bishop) members, is part of the governing structure of the Episcopal Church, along with the House of Bishops (to which all bishops belong). They meet every three years in General Convention to conduct the business of the church in the United States.
-----
Dan's experience with the Church is somewhat similar. My formative years were in the fellowship of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, a body of German ethnic background but closely allied to the Methodist Church, with which it eventually united to form the United Methodist Church. (I had the added twist of being catechized in the Roman Catholic Church -- the Baltimore Catechism, mind you!, pre-Vatican II -- thanks to my father's second wife being a Catholic.)
I, too, was drawn to the ministry -- at an even earlier age -- and warmly supported by my pastor and congregation. From the earliest moment, I had known ministers in the church who were gay, so simply being gay did not appear to be an impediment, although in those days (the 1950s), absolutely no one discussed these matters openly.
I left the church in the 1960s, not over being gay, but because I felt the church in which I found myself was not meeting the challenges of the era and to which I was committed -- civil rights, the Vietnam War and the fight against poverty and hopelessness in America.
When I came back to the church in 1985, I was drawn to Anglicanism because it combined the warm fellowship of my evangelical childhood, an embrace of reasoned discourse in all things, and classical worship which ties it with the Church in all places and times.
Though I spent several years discerning whether I was indeed called -- again -- to the ministry of the Church, the realization finally dawned on me that it was Plainfield to which I had been called. No more, no less.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
What follows is a sermon preached by Plainfielder John Hartman, an old friend, whom many of you may know as a founder of FOSH (Friends of Sleepy Hollow). In the early 1980s, John and I were among the founders of RSVP, Plainfield's first organization of gays and lesbians.
John is in his second year of seminary and looks forward to ordination to the priesthood at the end of 2008. The sermon was preached yesterday in the Chapel of St. John the Divine at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, the home of Northwestern University. The PRIMATES referred to in the sermon are the archbishops who lead the Church in each country or Province of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion has approximately 77 million adherents worldwide, next in size among Christian bodies to the Roman Catholic Church.
While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised.”
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
-- Matthew 20:17-28 (New Revised Standard Version)
+ Grace, mercy, and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Good morning sisters and brothers in Christ.
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking."
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Jesus said this because a mother asked him to place her one son on his left and her other son on his right. Jesus responds however, saying that it was not his to do. As I read this Gospel reading from Matthew the one thing that resonated with me was this line, this short sentence.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I felt drawn to this line, these eight words, because many years ago I was asked to join Christ at his side and where I thought the only answer I could give him was:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
"Being part of the Anglican Communion is very important to me," said The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, Bishop of New York and former Dean of Seabury, "but if the price of that is I have to turn my back on the gay and lesbian people who are part of this church and part of me I won't do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"In recent times, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure," said Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies**, debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all.
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"The Gospel summons us to a unified effort against the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, and the degradation of women and children," said The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, and yet he continued, "the Primates behave as though quashing dissent on issues of human sexuality were the central calling of the Christian faith.
"Under no circumstances will I support a moratorium on the consecration of individuals living in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy and under no circumstances will I enforce a ban on the blessing of same sex unions."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
More than 42 years ago I began asking -- discerning -- what I believed was a call to ordained ministry. I was a senior in high school, quite active in my church, St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania. My pastor, the Rev. Alfred Sandrock, who just died a few weeks ago, asked if I might be interested in becoming a pastor. He made me quite a proposition, saying that he knew there was scholarship money available to cover most of my undergraduate and seminary work. He even hinted that he could get me into Franklin and Marshall College -- F&M -- in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Following F&M he said, it would be easy to enroll in the Lancaster Theological Seminary. Both F&M and the Seminary were and still are affiliated with the United Church of Christ.
Needless to say his encouragement gave me reason for serious pause. But, at the time I knew something that Pastor Sandrock didn't. I knew that I was queer. I use that word intentionally because in the mid-60s the word gay was not part of our vocabulary, and the word queer was used in its most derogatory sense. And, in the mid-late 60s, a queer man from a conservative small town in Pennsylvania Dutch Country was not encouraged at all to aspire to any ministry of any church that I knew.
At this time the United Church of Christ was less than 10 years old, resulting from a merger of the Congregational Christian Church and the much more conservative branch, of which I was a member, the Evangelical & Reformed. Then, the United Church of Christ was not the inclusive and liberal church it is today.
So although Rev. Sandrock encouraged and pursued me, I found myself incapable of saying to him:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I walked away from any further conversations about becoming a minister. I walked away because I was scared about being found out that I was queer. I was 17 years old and scared to death about my future. Scared about how my family and community would react to learning of my sexual orientation.
"It has always seemed to me that if we accept gay and lesbian people as full partners in our church we have to be consistent on matters of marriage and clergy," said The Rt. Rev. William Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. "We can't advocate two classes of church citizenship: one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals. Church unity is important but you can't compromise on basic principles of conscience. I'm not willing to do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
Nothing sums up my own feelings about the Primates communiqué more than what was said by The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Dean and President of the Episcopal Divinity School, who said … "Enough is enough. If the Anglican Communion must separate over this fundamental issue of human rights, then so be it."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
For me the issue boils down to inclusiveness … human rights … social justice … sexual equality, and my sheer inability to compromise on those issues.
I am 59 years old, I had built up a good career over the last 35 years before coming to Seabury, and I had a comfortable lifestyle. But Christ called. Christ calling me said, John, you've been ignoring me too long, you've pushed me aside just too many times.
The first time Christ called, some 42 years ago, I walked away from him. I walked away in shame for who I was. I walked away scared of how I might be treated. I walked away from Christ and my own cross. I said:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Now Christ, who stayed with me and always stays with us; Christ, who never gives up on us; Christ, who only sees us in love; has again asked me to stand with him at the cross. And this time I will not walk away.
I wonder now, What are you going to do? Are you going to stand with Christ in this season of Lent getting ready to follow him to the cross? Are you going to say, like so many in our church are saying, "Enough is enough, I will not compromise on the vital issues of human rights, social justice, and sexual equality."
Allow me to be bold and probably presumptuous and ask you to join Christ and me at the cross and say to the primates.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
By the Grace of God. Amen.
**The House of Deputies, composed of lay and clerical (non-bishop) members, is part of the governing structure of the Episcopal Church, along with the House of Bishops (to which all bishops belong). They meet every three years in General Convention to conduct the business of the church in the United States.
-----
Dan's experience with the Church is somewhat similar. My formative years were in the fellowship of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, a body of German ethnic background but closely allied to the Methodist Church, with which it eventually united to form the United Methodist Church. (I had the added twist of being catechized in the Roman Catholic Church -- the Baltimore Catechism, mind you!, pre-Vatican II -- thanks to my father's second wife being a Catholic.)
I, too, was drawn to the ministry -- at an even earlier age -- and warmly supported by my pastor and congregation. From the earliest moment, I had known ministers in the church who were gay, so simply being gay did not appear to be an impediment, although in those days (the 1950s), absolutely no one discussed these matters openly.
I left the church in the 1960s, not over being gay, but because I felt the church in which I found myself was not meeting the challenges of the era and to which I was committed -- civil rights, the Vietnam War and the fight against poverty and hopelessness in America.
When I came back to the church in 1985, I was drawn to Anglicanism because it combined the warm fellowship of my evangelical childhood, an embrace of reasoned discourse in all things, and classical worship which ties it with the Church in all places and times.
Though I spent several years discerning whether I was indeed called -- again -- to the ministry of the Church, the realization finally dawned on me that it was Plainfield to which I had been called. No more, no less.
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Letter to Editor - Courier- Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
*
Published in the Courier News, Monday, March 5, 2007
[Letter to editor]
Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
I thought I had to take 24 hours to digest the content of the letter to the editor that Alex Toliver had printed in a recent issue of the Courier News.
But then I realized, much like a huge pile of cotton candy, there wasn't much substance to digest regarding the supposed accomplishments of our mayor here in Plainfield.
The entire letter listed all these "great" things about Plainfield and some things we are going to be seeing in the future, supposedly. No real actual accomplishment was listed, such as, say, "She got a traffic light installed at that terrible intersection." No, in fact the entire letter was a glossed over press release minus any real filler.
The writer mentioned some "dark clouds and many obstacles placed in her path." Would this be what the bodyguards are for? To help move these "obstacles"? Or are the body guards a knee-jerk response to someone mentioning a rumor that might have been heard.
Give me a list; that's all I ask. I want a list of tangible accomplishments that had nothing to do with the previous administration before I would waste the effort of turning one, much less two, thumbs up for a figurehead for the county Democratic Party.
The only unity I see that is present in Plainfield -- yes still the Queen City -- is the absolute shame half this city had walking in like sheep and pulling the lever that Jerry Green told them to pull.
You want a thumb up -- impress me. Start acting like a mayor. Make some decisions like enforcing zoning issues downtown, coming up with real ideas to improve the looks of the business district, getting some grants to increase green spaces inside the city, improving some of the parks, fixing a couple of the pothole-ridden streets (say, like Eighth Street right in front of the library), moving on making rental properties inspected and safer and maybe getting rid of some of the trash downtown (litter and people). This is just a list -- now, pick one, two or a few and start making a difference.
I think it would be great if the Courier News penned an article asking all the citizens of Plainfield for their ideas on improving Plainfield. Then, hand that list to the mayor and City Council.
Trust me, I have nothing personal against the mayor. But she most definitely does not deserve overwhelming praise for merely keeping the boat from sinking while docked at port. When walking through Plainfield as a whole, there is very little to be impressed about. Can someone explain the broken window theory to our mayor? Maybe Al McWilliams wasn't the best mayor, but he actually got things done.
Now, like I said, get a couple of the above things done and tell the paper to report it. We will all at least praise you for that. Remember, less fluff, more filler.
ROB MCCONNELL
Plainfield
Link to online story.
(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.)
Published in the Courier News, Monday, March 5, 2007
[Letter to editor]
Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
I thought I had to take 24 hours to digest the content of the letter to the editor that Alex Toliver had printed in a recent issue of the Courier News.
But then I realized, much like a huge pile of cotton candy, there wasn't much substance to digest regarding the supposed accomplishments of our mayor here in Plainfield.
The entire letter listed all these "great" things about Plainfield and some things we are going to be seeing in the future, supposedly. No real actual accomplishment was listed, such as, say, "She got a traffic light installed at that terrible intersection." No, in fact the entire letter was a glossed over press release minus any real filler.
The writer mentioned some "dark clouds and many obstacles placed in her path." Would this be what the bodyguards are for? To help move these "obstacles"? Or are the body guards a knee-jerk response to someone mentioning a rumor that might have been heard.
Give me a list; that's all I ask. I want a list of tangible accomplishments that had nothing to do with the previous administration before I would waste the effort of turning one, much less two, thumbs up for a figurehead for the county Democratic Party.
The only unity I see that is present in Plainfield -- yes still the Queen City -- is the absolute shame half this city had walking in like sheep and pulling the lever that Jerry Green told them to pull.
You want a thumb up -- impress me. Start acting like a mayor. Make some decisions like enforcing zoning issues downtown, coming up with real ideas to improve the looks of the business district, getting some grants to increase green spaces inside the city, improving some of the parks, fixing a couple of the pothole-ridden streets (say, like Eighth Street right in front of the library), moving on making rental properties inspected and safer and maybe getting rid of some of the trash downtown (litter and people). This is just a list -- now, pick one, two or a few and start making a difference.
I think it would be great if the Courier News penned an article asking all the citizens of Plainfield for their ideas on improving Plainfield. Then, hand that list to the mayor and City Council.
Trust me, I have nothing personal against the mayor. But she most definitely does not deserve overwhelming praise for merely keeping the boat from sinking while docked at port. When walking through Plainfield as a whole, there is very little to be impressed about. Can someone explain the broken window theory to our mayor? Maybe Al McWilliams wasn't the best mayor, but he actually got things done.
Now, like I said, get a couple of the above things done and tell the paper to report it. We will all at least praise you for that. Remember, less fluff, more filler.
ROB MCCONNELL
Plainfield
Link to online story.
(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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)