“And thus I clothe my naked villany with odd old ends stol’n forth of Holy Writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” Richard III.
The Ethics Advisory Panel’s “legal opinion” in the Corzine-Katz matter is so untrustworthy that it appears to be little more than a public relations tool to silence critics, spin the Press, and create an unfounded public impression of blamelessness. The fact Governor Corzine readily embraces the Panel as is and accepts its “vindication” without further action raises serious question of whether Governor Corzine’s appointments to the NJ Court, Supreme Court, or its Chief Justice are based on political expediency or judicial temperament.
BACKGOUND SUMMARY
It seems beyond dispute the March – April outcry surrounding the Corzine-Katz relationship and its possible impact on the New Jersey-Communication Workers of America contract, rather than going away, grew loader with each official denial. It also seems beyond dispute that both Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, aside from making denials, had no intention of offering proof of their statements. When Bogota’s Mayor Lonegan asked the Ethic’s Advisory Panel to intervene, the Governor also asked for a review and the Panel assumed jurisdiction.
During the period that followed the Governor Corzine was critically injured in a car accident. On his way to meet with the Rutgers’ Basketball team and Don Imus, the SUV hit a guard rail. The SUV was traveling at 91 miles per hour although the Governor has stated there was no rush because the meeting had been pushed ahead. Moreover, although the Governor was sitting in the “death-seat”, he was not wearing a seat belt.
Governor Corzine returned to work on Monday, May 7, 2007 and the Panel issued its “legal opinion” the next day.
PUBLIC RELATIONS IN PRACTICE
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” U.S. President James Madison, 1822.
The quasi-judicial opinion appears to be mostly public relations as it is untrustworthy. There are four reasons. First, it was conducted by persons who lack judicial independence as they are solely appointed by the Governor for three year terms. Second, the “hearings” were secret. Thus, there is no record except for the opinion which is based on secret communications between advisors acting as quasi-judges and the witnesses, who are giving testimony about other secret communications about union points that actually took place between the Governor and Ms. Katz during the State-Union negotiations. Without copies of transcripts and copies of the emails, and without a fair but reliable process of distinguishing between relevant and person communications, there can be no transparency or public oversight. Without a record of the proceedings there is no way to test, let alone clarify or challenge, the facts revealed by Justice O’Hern’s telephone “depositions.” Three, the O’Hern Panel failed to distinguish between the appearance of impartiality and actual impartially. The O’Hern panel held there were secret communications between the Governor and Ms. Katz. Thus the appearance of impropriety. They also held the communications did not influence the negotiations as a matter of fact. Hence, the lack of actual bias. They only problem is that in both instances no one has seen or heard the evidence. Moreover, the O’Hern panel failed to discuss if and why an ex-husband and wife would or would not be allowed to appear together in Court as Judge and lawyer. Finally, although the ex parte communications between Governor Corzine and CWA President Katz create the appearance of impropriety the Panel can only advise against such communications. It has no power to provide a remedy because of the rule of necessity, only the Governor, and not Senator Codey Acting as Governor, can negotiate the contract. Thus, there is no offense.
NEW “JERSEY JUSTICE”
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Hamilton or Madison, Federalist Papers #51.
One cannot say that Governor Corzine’s request the Ethics Advisory Panel advise him as to any conflict between his personal and political relationship with Ms. Katz is a deal with the devil. One can say, however, Governor Corzine was certainly willing to accompany him on the journey.
Governor Corzine could, as Governor, have insisted on a meaningful and credible review. And, it is only necessary and proper it be independent, fair and reliable. Instead, Governor Corzine went alone for the ride, apparently because he has stated on numerous occasions he didn’t want a public record and thus did not want public scrutiny. Yet it was he who requested the review.
As important, Justice O’Hern could have refused to participate in a shame proceeding. Can you image anything more abhorrent to traditional democracy and more partisan than Justice O’Hern agreeing to act unchecked as judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and jury? Can you imagine sitting in a court where the judge leaves the bench and calls the witnesses from a phone in his or her office? Or, can you imagine not being able to challenge the completeness, authenticity or veracity of the verbal and written evidence.
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS RESULT
The actions of the Ethics Advisory Panel are presumed to be a search for the truth and the light it purports to shed to fairly resolve the matter. They do not. Still, the Corzine-Katz favorable Report corroborates and enhances political support for Governor Corzine while it simultaneously contradicts and discredits the opposition. Over 82 stories (using corzine & ethics) headlined the Ethic’s Advisory Panel had found no ethics violations from Governor Corzine’s involvement with Ms. Katz. Such generous, but short lived, press coverage of the Report thus strengthened the decree because the reporting press is presumed to be a guardian of the people against government wrongdoing. In short, massive, repetitive, and rapid distribution of the vindicating headline is social proof. The cumulative result of the spin process is to mislead the public by substituting hidden details for proof and appearances for reality.
GOVERNOR CORZINE’S EMBRACE OF THE “QUASI-JUDICIAL “LEGAL OPINION” IS AN OMINOUS SIGN ON JUDICAL APPOINTMENTS.
Soon Governor Corzine will announce the appointment of a new Supreme Court Chief Justice. How will that person respond to things not in the Governor’s or his partisan interest? Like when the “devil is in the details?” In light of the above, the cautionary words of Publius are appropriate.
“. . . no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.” Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78.
