First, this is a disclaimer of any legal capacity, authority, and ability. It also disclaims any connection to the matter at hand. It makes no pretense at giving legal advice. This is a layman’s everyone-has-one opinion. Second, the article is “biased” The bias here is that it appears from Mayor Lonegan’s Grievance that Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz are being misleadingly played.
The Devils’ Conjecture
Ok. Everyone has preferences and prejudices about the people we interact with and the things that we do. Furthermore, most people have influence, not the power, to determine an outcome. So, if preferences/prejudices and influence are the criteria for determining the propriety for negotiating the NJ-CWA labor agreement, then it is common sense that no one could pass the test. The overriding question then, is how one measures a preference or prejudice to determine if it is, or appears to be, intolerable.
The Devil’s Details
The Ethics Advisory Panel may have opened the door to review Mayor Lonegan’s “letter” and resolve its issue(s) pursuant to New Jersey’s Code of Conduct for the Governor . Of course, they may read the letter and decide they have no power to act.
In looking at the letter it only seems fair the Ethics Advisory Panel” initially take the letter’s facts as true and give them the meaning most favorable to the Mayor’s accusation(s). The letter to the panel, however, has yet to appear online and this blog is based on his earlier letters (letter1 and letter2). The facts in these letters are sparse .Thus we use unproved press accounts to help ask our questions and express our thoughts. It
cannot and in fairness to all should not be assumed the press accounts are before the Panel or that they are correct.
One might also be concerned about whether Mayor Lonegan has sufficient direct involvement to pursue the complaint as the panel advises the governor. One must also ask whether the Panel has the power to address any concerns about Ms. Katz role. If not the entire controversy may not be put to rest.
Finally, one would hope that Justice O’Hern would take the lead, and the Panel, if acting in something like a judicial or even advisory capacity, would adopt the rules of judicial conduct. Thus, if there is any ethical cloud in their past, they should announce it, publicly decide its effect, if any, and, necessity or not, appropriately proceed. Criticism they are not independent, whether because they were appointed by the Governor or anything else, must be laid to rest. In the end their credibility is as important as their reasoning that vindicates or restores the public’s faith and confidence in the Office.
That said one would imagine the Panel has the power to dismiss the letter without detailed review if the accusation(s) of legal impropriety do not clearly violate any particular ethics rule.
This is raised because the two letters do not seem to show the violation of any specific rule. It seems reasonable the Panel will distinguish Code of Conduct purpose from the individual rules that spell-out what types of conduct are or appear to be in intolerable conflict with that purpose. Thus, if the Code is to “ensure public trust and confidence” in the “conduct of the Governor”, one would hope the Panel spells out the circumstances where things like gifts to (or by) the Governor are or are not permitted. And it is hoped the Panel compares financial and personal suspicions of conflict, a tenuous conflict, and an inconsequential conflict, with an intolerable conflict, in either fact or appearance.
The Devil’s Advocate
1. What facts would lead the public to believe or disbelieve that either then Senator Corzine or Ms. Katz were acting in anything other than a personal capacity at the time the loan was made? Why? Because there don’t seem to be any common sense reason to believe otherwise. What direct personal, as opposed to official or union, financial interest does either Governor Corzine or Miss Katz have in the contract outcome? Will the gift be unforgiven? Conversely, there was no pressure from loan payments to be given or received to affect negotiations. It would seem any such pressure was removed at least two years ago by making the loan a gift. Our question is by analogy. Would a Judge selling a chunk of Merck stock because he might be called upon to try a Vioxx case be subject to similar accusations if eventually assigned a Vioxx case?
2. Money aside, how does their prior personal relationship affect the negotiators and thus the negotiations? The relationship ended in 2004 and the loan forgiven in 2005. It has not been disputed their separation was anything but amicable, i.e. polite, cordial. This doesn’t seem to resemble a degree of either favorable or unfavorable feelings between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz that would prevent them from doing their respective jobs. That’s not to say there may not have been some subsequent moments, maybe even in the midst of negotiation, of anger or even laughs. But the level or intensity of reported passion, favorable or unfavorable, just doesn’t seem capable of preventing each individual from being other than normal adversaries and mutually respectful negotiators.
3. There has been speculation that Ms. Katz, during a contract discussion with the 6 other union presidents, strongly opposed a State bargaining point, and declared she intended and maybe even tried to privately see the Governor. But aside from the heat of the moment, cooler heads must have prevailed as no one has disputed the meeting never happened. No disrespect intended, but it seems Ms. Katz would have had to have grabbed a baseball bat or an evening gown, barged into the Governors office, and locked the Governor inside with her until he conceded the point – that would at least appear to be an intolerable bias. The bottom line is she must have realized it wasn’t a good idea because she didn’t push it. Thus, she showed the ability to properly overcome any personal disposition apart from normal ups and downs and do what she believed to be the right thing in reaching a final position.
4. Finally, barring a showing of fraud, a rubber stamp or some other extraordinary circumstance, and assuming an open, full, thorough and fair review of the contract, the Legislature and union members will decide if the contract is acceptable and have the power to make it binding – not the Governor or Ms. Katz.
