Proposed Pay-to-Play Ordinance in Clerk's Hands

South Jersey Citizens on Monday delivered a petition seeking to have its proposed pay-to-play ordinance either adopted by the Township Council in late March or voted on by the township electorate in November.

SJC political director Joshua Berry presented the petition to Clerk Rosemary DiJosie during the public portion of Monday night's Council meeting.

The petition includes 1,268 signatures from registered township voters who support the proposed pay-to-play ordinance, according to Berry.

DiJosie has 20 days to verify the validity of the SJC-collected signatures on the petition, according to state law governing the initiative-and-referendum process in towns operating under the so-called Faulkner Act form of government.

In order for the ordinance to move on to Council, DiJosie must verify 1,048 signatures—a number equal to 10 percent of the 10,474 township voters who went to polls in the November 2011 election.

The 20-day clock starts ticking today, as Berry submitted the petition after the end of the township business day on Monday. 

If the 10-percent requirement is satisfied, DiJosie must immediately notify Council that the petition has been certified—a step that presumably would occur at Council's scheduled March 5 work session.

Council would then have a 20-day window to act on the ordinance.

"I haven't even thought about it," Council President Glen Bianchini responded following the meeting when asked if Council would act on the ordinance. "We'll take a look at it. We'll be sure to make sure all the legal times are observed."

If Council fails to adopt the ordinance or adopts a watered-down version of the proposal, the measure would be put to township voters in November if SJC so desires.

After Council's 20-day action window expires, SJC could opt over the following 10 days to pull the petition from consideration.

"I want to thank publicly a large number of people who have helped us on this effort. Most of our collections happened in the heat of last summer..." Berry said. "This is a joyous, happy time. It shows that citizens can get involved and make a difference. Whether you agree with this proposal or not, the fact is that citizens are getting involved, we are exercising our rights under Faulkner and we're becoming a part of the process."

SJC first approached Council with its proposed ordinance in late May.

Pay to play refers to the practice of awarding government contracts to campaign contributors. SJC is seeking to strengthen the limitations in place under state law.

As he had back in May, Blackwood resident Russell Burt expressed reservations about the proposed ordinance.

Burt, who said he supports the idea of limiting contributions from professional-services providers, indicated he is concerned the SJC-proposed ordinance would make it difficult for the township to do business with other municipalities.

"My concern is that we as an individual municipality may jeopardize some of our shared-services contracts if the other municipalities don't adopt the same rules that we do," he said.

Berry returned to the microphone to counter that the proposed ordinance would allow the township to enter into shared-services agreements with towns that do not have pay-to-play ordinances on the books. He added that Cherry Hill Township—Camden County's largest municipality—has already adopted its own pay-to-play ordinance.

"Are we jeopardizing ourselves in a shared service with them?" he rhetorically asked.

The question, as it appeared on the petition circulated by SJC and as it would appear on ballots in November, is below:

Shall the "pay-to-play" reform ordinance, duly submitted by petition to the Township of Gloucester, which includes, among other provisions, (a) limitations on contributions to Camden County and local political parties from firms receiving professional, banking, insurance, and other consultant contracts in the Township of Gloucester; (b) prohibitions on political contributions by firms receiving professional, banking, insurance, and other consultant contracts during the negotiation and performance of such contracts, and (c) limitations on political contributions by partners and certain owners of firms receiving professional, banking, insurance, and other consultant contracts and certain persons affiliated with it to $300 each per year to local candidates, $500 each per year to local and county political parties, and $2500 per year in aggregate from a firm and its affiliates, be approved?