BY ELAINE VAN DEVELDE
Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — As officials see it, three laws limiting pay-to-play practices are better than one.
With that in mind, the Borough Council earlier this month passed two local laws to put a stop to rewarding campaign contributors with professional services contracts by limiting their contributions under local laws. A third law is up for adoption on April 5.
After more than a year of mulling over the reform issue, which has become a popular statewide move, borough officials honed language in three ordinances tailored to their town. The move to adopt the ordinances came just weeks after a countywide FBI sting arrested public officials who had allegedly been caught taking bribes connected to municipal business and laundering taxpayer money.
Why three local laws covering the subject as opposed to just one blanket law?
“Just one is too cumbersome,” said Borough Council President Jerome Donlon. “With one large ordinance like this you can get too bogged down in different language that can confuse the issue.”
One of the two ordinances that the borough has already adopted sets parameters for those seeking no-bid contracts in the borough and limits their campaign contributions to $500 from a single contributor to someone running for public office or $2,500 from a group of people toward a campaign.
It is modeled after one crafted by the statewide group Common Cause, which has lobbied against pay-to-play.
The penalties for violating the law go as far as the violator losing a contract with the borough for no-bid services.
The other ordinance prohibits either monetary or in-kind contributions to campaigns by those who hold a liquor license in town or are applying for one.
The penalty for violation, Donlon said, is that the entity or person holding the license would lose it.
“This makes us more aware of what is going on and sets clear guidelines that we won’t tolerate … implied conflicts of interest, such as the use of a restaurant for a person in office or campaigning, or some sort of discounted services,” he added.
The third ordinance, up for public hearing and adoption on April 5, involves avoiding any sort of conflict of interest between Planning Board and Zoning Board members.
“It makes people aware of contributions a developer coming before the boards may have made to board members [which include some council members and the mayor],” Donlon said.
The ordinance, which is in the process of being refined, will deal with making sure a developer discloses any campaign contributions made in town before submitting an application to either board.
But the disclosure is not enough for Councilman Peter Maclearie, who is running against Mayor Ann McNamara in the borough’s nonpartisan elections in May.
Maclearie, who said he started pushing independently for pay-to-play laws more than a year ago, wants the third ordinance to have language in it that would ensure that a board member who took a campaign contribution (of any amount and at any time) from any developer coming before the board to step down from hearing that developer’s application.
He had called for more severe penalties in the other ordinances as well.
“Otherwise, how do you know how fair and impartial someone who benefited from a campaign contribution made by that contributing developer is going to be?” Maclearie asked. “This sort of law would just strengthen public trust and the pay-to-play ideals.”