Curley may be freeholder candidate again

By ARTHUR Z. KAMIN

This is not against Amy A. Mallet, Monmouth ‘s Democratic freeholder-elect, the underdog who beat out Republican John P. Curley by a razor-thin margin of about 350 votes in last month’s historic and nerve-wracking general election that gave her party control of county government for the first time in 23 years.

Mallet waged a strong political campaign. She held her own under some vicious personal attacks by the GOP. Indications are that she will be an active participant in honest and responsible Board of Freeholders-run decision-making So there are no immediate problems there.

But this also is about a lament that Curley, a former Red Bank councilman, was defeated at the polls. He was the first breath of clean, fresh air in the county Republican freeholder candidate ranks in a long time. He ran an election battle that was refreshing and forthright. He was not afraid to tackle ethical issues. . He spoke his mind about GOP insiders, past and present.

Republican leaders didn’t know quite how to handle him. He often was called a “loose cannon”—but some partisan party people found it more advantageous to support him than a Democrat.

Still, it was good to see Curley, another Republican potential officeholder coming to the forefront among the super-special lines of state Sen. Jennifer Beck of the 12^th District and Assemblywoman Amy H. Handlin of the 13^th District.. Handlin is a former freeholder deputy director who started the county board on a path of much-needed ethical and fiscal reform after the corruption days under the late former Republican Freeholder Director Harry Larrison, Jr. Many Republicans don’t like to talk about those scandal-ridden times and treat them as if they never happened.

Curley said he likes being mentioned in the same company as Beck and Handlin, whom he regards as “two progressive legislators” And the encouraging news today is that Curley is expected to be a freeholder candidate again next year. “I loved every minute” of the campaigning, he said , “and would certainly enjoy doing it again.” . He added: “I continue to stay in contact with elected officials throughout Monmouth in an effort to keep my fingers on the pulse rate of our citizens.” He’s too good to lose.

Things can change in the whole selection process for both parties between now and November--but it appears that Curley coiuld be up against an experienced and formidable foe in incumbent Freeholder barbara mcMorrow. Reports indicate the board's now Democratic majority will name her as director next month to replace Lillian G. Burry.

Curley, who said, “I do not bend to the whims of others,” said he was scolded privately during the campaign by Freeholder Deputy Director Robert D. Clifton and outgoing Freeholder William C. Barham, both Republicans, after he came out publicly in favor of giving a new name to Brookdale Community College’s tarnished Larrison Hall, a county monument to the longtime freeholder director charged in 2005 by the FBI with accepting bribes. He died before the case went to trial. Then U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie led the charge that brought the corruption arrest of 11 officials in the county.

“They told me taking that stand would cost me 500 votes,” Curley stated. And, as it turned out, they may have been right . But that didn’t stop Curley. So you have to admire the guy. He said he “never was concerned about an admonishment, continuing: “Be true to yourself and your beliefs and you never have to look over your shoulder.”

Clifton, through a spokesman, said he never discussed Larrison Hall with Curley. Barham hasn’t been heard from. Curley stands by his story. Interestingly, Beck and Handlin took stands identical to Curley on the new name for Larrison Hall issue.

Curley also took on another heavy-hitter in Malcolm V. Carton, chief county counsel and a former Larrison lieutenant and crony. Curley got the ball rolling to reduce the hourly rate for couny attorneys and to prevent them from being hired as fulltime employees. “This practice costs too much money long-term,” Curley said. And he won’t stop at just hiring a handful. “I believe in shrinking the size of government and not creating more pensioners.” He wants a term limit on Carton’s position. That’s tough talk—but it is in the best interests of taxpayers.

So if Curley runs again for freeholder, it will add to the excitement of next November’s election in Monmouth County. Just think—Christie the reformer might be the Republican candidate for governor on the same ticket with Beck seeking to run for lieutenant governor. And the icing on the cake: Handlin will seek Assembly re-election.

While the economy will continue to be the main issue, with that potent GOP political lineup, voters can be sure that the ravages of corruption that laid this county low in disgrace not too many years ago will not be forgotten and discussed openly. And the symbol of those dark days – an academic building on the county’s community college campus no less—will get another name to herald a new ethical era for the county and the state.

(Arthur Z. Kamin, Fair Haven, is an independent journalist who has taught English and journalism as a Brookdale adjunct instructor.)

Sable Minded: Pallone's legislation introduced

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., has introduced legislation in Washington, D.C. that would, if adopted, stop FEMA from issuing new flood maps in the Bayshore (or anywhere else for that matter). Rep. Pallone's bill places a temporary moratorium on the federal agency issuing the new flood maps, until the protocol being used by FEMA is revisited.

This bill was in response to a situation during recent months in the Bayshore, where FEMA has been discounting decades of work by the Army Corps of Engineers where it involves flood remediation. Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe the methodology used by FEMA is deeply flawed.

FEMA officials have already gone on the record about how a petition that was circulated in recent months by Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth/Middlesex, is not going to change any decisions by the agency. That leaves Rep. Pallone's legislation as the Bayshore's last best hope for some common sense.

Click on the headline to go to Melissa Gaffney's Sable Minded.

Committee action is symptom of a larger problem

In Middletown last night, the governing body adopted a resolution supporting Rep. Frank Pallone's legislation in Washington D.C. to place a moratorium on FEMA issuing new flood maps. The resolution had to contain the name of 13th District Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, though, or it would not have passed. It had to acknowledge her petition drive.

Assemblywoman Handlin turned the whole FEMA flood map issue into a partisan matter by coming out of the gate a few months ago swinging for Pallone in her early community meetings, obstensibly organized to address the flood maps. However, nearly from the beginning of this controversy, Rep. Pallone crafted a bill to stop the issuance of the new flood maps, giving some time for the agency's methodology to be addressed before finalization.

Perhaps trying to eye her next office, Mrs. Handlin has been preoccupied with the politics of it all. Far from endorsing Mr. Pallone's bill, she just doesn't address it. Instead, she gathers signatures on a petition that asks FEMA not to issue the maps (a delay -- same thing Pallone is trying to do) and for action from Pallone (which he has already done).

FEMA's representatives have made it clear they aren't going to change a darn thing about what they are doing as a consequence of Mrs. Handlin's petition. However, her energies could have been useful in informing area residents about Pallone's bill. But that would be too bipartisan for an office holder that places party above common sense or effective service. One of the least effective legislators in Trenton, perhaps a less egocentric view of government service might assist in getting something accomplished in office (other than PR campaigns for strictly public digestion without any other effect).

Mr. Pallone's bill will, if adopted, give the Bayshore another shot at getting these maps amended. But FEMA said it will do nothing at all as a consequence of the petition because FEMA is governed by Congress, and so the bill is the only thing that will work.

In Middletown, in line with the party above common sense war cry, the Republican majority on the committee acted as if they had never heard of Pallone's bill, or his efforts in Washington D.C. aimed to getting this important measure approved. Rather, they were cognizant of the Handlin petition, which accomplishes nothing and makes a lot of noise while doing it.

If Middletown's Republican majority cannot summon enough common sense to understand the ability of this bill to assist this area directly, nor have the wherewithall to work cooperatively with other office holders, even if they are of another party, then they should not hold office. Last night, it was made clear the Republican majority on the committee were not even aware of the actions of their congressman to remediate this matter, and at that point this ignorance surrounding party nonsense has gone too far.

This bill needs to be supported by this area. It needs to be adopted in Congress. And, Middletown needs a new majority.

Government in Middletown: Opening taxpayers up to liability?

Commentary...

An interesting case is happening in Middletown. The Middletown Committee is seeking to serve alcohol at the Banfield Cultural Arts Center, adjacent the railroad tracks, during a fundraiser.

Here are my concerns.

No. 1: Is it the role of government to compete with private business? A cultural arts center (a business government is not intended to be in by any standard) is looking to serve liquor (like a bar) to patrons to attract their business. Neither the entertainment or bar businesses are supposed to be supported by tax dollars. It's not American.

No. 2: What happens if an event patron drives away from Banfield drunk? God forbid property is harmed or, far more grave, someone is injured by a patron who had too much to drink at this town event. No government of this country should put itself in a position of vulnerability because of alcohol.

No. 3: Who is financially liable if someone from a municipal event involving liquor drives away from such an event in a way that makes them unfit to drive? If it is a municipal event, then how can it be argued that the town had nothing to do with it? If there is liability then how does the town escape it? More importantly, why should the town escape liability if harm occurred due to a town event, which included drinking?

No. 4: Is including drinking at town events a good idea when, at the same period of time, Middletown's assemblyperson, Amy Handlin, is lobbying for the PNC Bank Arts Center, in Holmdel, to have their liquor license lifted? Regardless of the detached nature of the surrounding events at PNC Bank Arts Center, in Holmdel, and the Banfield Cultural Arts Center, in Middletown, the equation comes down to this: Government is seeking to lift the liquor license of a private concern for safety reasons as a result of excess and harm to a recent center patron; Government is trying to grant a liquor license to itself at a smaller, government-owned venue to make money on a fundraiser (that is in competition with private concerns in the area, e.g. the Basie, Two River Theatre, etc.).

So, government is making the assumption it should have a liquor license, based on its need, while government is seeking to remove a liquor license from private industry because of safety reasons. I agree with Mrs. Handlin, that the level of potential harm in liquor could make lifting the arts center's liquor license necessary. Of course, this could also cause great economic harm to the center. Nevertheless, safety first. With that said, what is the defense for allowing liquor served on government property, especially when it is in competition with private concerns? People are not even allowed to smoke indoors on government property...but they are allowed to drink?

In America, capitalism was the way this nation decided to go a long time ago. It is not a capitalist notion for government to compete with private industry. Similarly, it is not prudent to open the taxpayer up to liability by serving liquor on government property, understanding the risk the town opens the taxpayers up to as a consequence of that decision.

Any government that opens the taxpayers up to irresponsible risk is heading in the wrong direction, in my opinion. Governments that are moving in the wrong direction need new leaders to put them in the right direction (or at least a direction that does not move toward risk and away from core principles of this republic).

If the risk at the PNC Bank Arts Center is too great to serve liquor in the future, and I agree it may be, then the risk of a town potentially losing millions to raise thousands is similarly too high. The bottom line is this: It is OK for the area to lose many millions at the PNC Bank Arts Center, because people come first. Just the same: Government should not give different rules to itself than it does to the private sector.

Handlin calls on Gov. Corzine to rein in state overtime

PRESS RELEASE

March 14, 2007

Assemblywoman Amy Handlin/732-787-1170
Assembly Republican Office/609-292-5339

In response to a recent Asbury Park Press article which reported the state's Executive Branch spent more than $230 million on overtime pay last year, Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth/Middlesex, on March 14 said such expenditures are a prime example of why New Jersey is on the fast track to bankruptcy and called on Governor Jon Corzine to end this practice now.

"Even as Governor Corzine was laying out his Fiscal Year 2008 budget, he was telling us that the state is facing a structural budget deficit for next year. On Monday, OLS told the Assembly Budget Committee there's a very good chance the governor's proposed budget may have a $633 million shortfall," Handlin said. "Is it any wonder this state is in such a hole when we're paying out exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money for overtime pay?"

According to the article, 79 percent of the Executive Branch's overtime was paid to employees in the departments of Human Services, Corrections and Law and Public Safety. Sixty-six state employees racked up more than $60,000 in overtime in 2006, with some more than doubling their salaries. Six employees made more than $80,000 in overtime. Executive Branch overtime pay accounted for five percent of its $5 billion salary budget.