BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP
Staff Writer
Officials have introduced an ordinance that will try to thwart improper influence in local elections.
The Township Council unanimously voted Monday to introduce an ordinance that, if passed, would prohibit the award of business contracts to certain local campaign contributors, according to Township Attorney Ron Gordon.
“The proposed ordinance would regulate the way professionals have of doing business with the township,” Gordon said. “It’s more commonly known as a pay-to-play ordinance.”
The ordinance would limit the contributions a professional or business entity seeking contracts with the municipality could make to a township candidate, holder of public office, and the parties and political action committees supporting their campaigns, Gordon said.
Under the provisions of the ordinance, professionals could not contribute more than $400 for a candidate or more than $500 to a candidate’s supporting committees during the calendar year preceding the date of contract. These terms would also apply to the professionals’ spouse and children living at home, Gordon said.
Principals, partners and officers of the business seeking contract would also fall subject to contribution regulations. The ordinance stipulates these people combined could not contribute more than $2,500, Gordon said.
Gordon said the ordinance also contains an anti-funneling provision.
“Principals of the business could not give loans or reimbursements to employees to make contributions on their behalf,” Gordon said.
Prior to awarding any contract, the township would have to receive and certify a sworn statement from the business that employees have not contributed in violation of the ordinance, Gordon said.
Those found in violation of the ordinance could lose eligibility for township contracts for up to four years after their violation, Gordon said. However, violations could be rectified if the person or business takes back excess contributions within 30 days of the discovered infraction.
Gordon said the ordinance recognizes some professionals may attempt to subvert the underlying purposes of the ordinance.
“Any professional business entity, which may attempt such creative subversion, does so at its peril,” Gordon said. “In the event creative actions are taken to defeat the purposes of this ordinance, the governing body can enact appropriate clarification, which shall be retroactive to the initial effective date of this ordinance.”
The ordinance also places a check on developer contributions, Gordon said.
Although the township could not approve or deny a developer’s application for a major subdivision or site plan approval based on contributions, Gordon said the ordinance requires developers to disclose donations made within two years of the date of their applications. The disclosure would have to be affixed to the application at its presentation to the township’s Planning or Zoning board.
Gordon also wrote into the ordinance that if any portion of it is adjudged by the courts to be invalid, it is the desire of the governing body that business entities will voluntarily comply with the ordinance’s intent.
Although the ordinance was drafted to establish a policy that would avert improper influence in local elections, resident Rita Goldstein told council members that it most likely won’t.
“This ordinance won’t have any impact on our local campaigns being funded by county organizations that will continue to accept any amount of money from businesses and developers, and without that, this ordinance is just smoke and mirrors,” Goldstein said.