There's nothing hotter in New Jersey this summer than the federal corruption investigation which has led to the arrest of 44 public officials and the resignations of an State Assemblyman, two mayors and a member of the governor's cabinet.
On the heels of the story, several state environmental groups today announced the formation of CleanGreenNJ, declaring:
"A common thread in the latest wave of indictments of NJ public officials is how developers are able to get what they want through a shadow system of campaign contributions, political connections, and outright bribery."
"A common thread in the latest wave of indictments of NJ public officials is how developers are able to get what they want through a shadow system of campaign contributions, political connections, and outright bribery."
The new coalition demands that the governor and state legislature:
+ Investigate DEP operations and enforce ethics rules
+ Empower DEP whistleblowers
+ Bring transparency for citizen watchdogs
+ Fix the campaign finance system and prohibit legislators from receiving outside sources of income
+ Rein in recent developer initiatives
+ Empower DEP whistleblowers
+ Bring transparency for citizen watchdogs
+ Fix the campaign finance system and prohibit legislators from receiving outside sources of income
+ Rein in recent developer initiatives
Sure sounds high-minded. But, a skeptic attuned to Jersey's enviro-political undercurrents, might question if something a bit more fishy isn't going on here.
The lengthy recitation of corruption charges filed by the FBI (rabbi money-laundering and body-parts-marketing aside) focused on payoffs for zoning and permit favors at the local level. The only references to the state DEP involved two Assemblymen who offered their briber (an FBI accomplice) only vague assurances that they "knew people" at the DEP who could help move permits along.
Charges of boasts by guys eager to line their pockets nonetheless has led to CleanGreenNJ's unqualified declaration today that:
"... DEP was directly involved in the bribery scheme, (emphasis added)...to restore public confidence and trust in the integrity of the agency, an independent investigation must be initiated to determine what happened and how pervasive the problems are. "
Hold on just a second. How did the enviros make the astonishing leap from a pol's assertion that he "knew the right guys" at the DEP to the agency being "directly involved in the bribery scheme"?
We must assume that CleanGreenNJ is privy to details of the federal investigations that have not yet been revealed to the rest of us.
So, in their next press release, we trust the coalition will disclose:
Who specifically at the DEP was involved?
What did they do to advance their bribers' plans?
Who specifically at the DEP was involved?
What did they do to advance their bribers' plans?
Did the DEP insiders earn a piece of bribe?
Or did they simply participate in the interest of advancing sprawl?
And why oh why, we wonder, do we need some new investigation to sort things out?
New Jersey has an entire building filled with investigators. It's called the Attorney General's Office. Why hasn't CleanGreenNJ brought its proof of direct DEP involvement there?
New Jersey has an entire building filled with investigators. It's called the Attorney General's Office. Why hasn't CleanGreenNJ brought its proof of direct DEP involvement there?
No, we suspect that this anti-corruption rant may be prompted by an agenda that's a bit less civic-minded and a bit more self-serving.
Please go back and take a closer look at CleanGreenNJ's five main demands above.
Now eliminate:
# 1 - Investige the DEP (which the AG's Offic is perfectly qualified to handle), and
# 4 - Fixing campaign financing (which has nothing to do with the DEP)
What's left?
#2 - Empower DEP whistleblowers
#3 - Bring transparency for citizen watchdogs, and
#5 - Rein in recent developer initiatives
When you blow away the smoke, the demands begin to look less like concern over political corruption and more like an opportunity to gain greater influence of their own over the DEP.
What do you think? Share your opinion in the comment box below. If you don't see one, click on the tiny 'comment' line which should activate the box. Signed comments are encouraged but anonymous submissions also are accepted.
And, no, we don't have the technical sophistication to decipher who you are if you respond anonymously. Nor do we care. Have at it!
RELATED:
OUR MOST RECENT POSTS:
Will TX beat NJ and NY to offshore wind energy?
Enviro watchdog nips again at NJDEP heels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get EnviroPolitics for the top environmental and political news
in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York every business day.
PLUS: Proposed environmental regulation alerts
PLUS: Full tracking of environmental legislation
Get EnviroPolitics free, without obligation, for 30 days!
in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York every business day.
PLUS: Proposed environmental regulation alerts
PLUS: Full tracking of environmental legislation
Get EnviroPolitics free, without obligation, for 30 days!
Great article! Very interesting!
ReplyDelete<3 Lindsay
The usual suspects, doing the usual things: whining and fundraising.
ReplyDeleteFrank - go read the Smith complaint - I'll excerpt it here.
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Mauriello is identified. Smith says he called Mauriello. Smith says someone from DEP returned that call and someone in DEP spoke with Mauriello After these conversations Smith claims its OK and DEP will sign off on the clean up (issue an NFA at a site with a CEA for a day care center and public housing).
I have emails (that have not been published) from DEP that show several staff dropping otehr cleanup work to respond to Smith's request - based on teh emaisl, it looks like DEP did the right thing at the lower levels, but it is not clear what Mauriello did with staff's recommendations (they said no to NFAS request).
I'm sure Mauriello must have been interviewed during the investigation. He must issue a statement about what he told Smith. I wrote Maurielo last week and demanded he do so and defend the integrity of DEP. He has done nothing publicly.
The Van Pelt complaint specifically says that DEP issued previous CAFRA and wetlands permits in response to his political pressure. He said "DEP works for me" - excerpt below. See also the NY Times story which shows that Van Pelt abused DEP oversight powers to pressure DEP for CAFRA and wetlands permit approvals..
If you were at the press conference, you would have heard me read the ethics standard in state ethics law (i.e based on appearance not actual conflict) adn also make distinctions between criminal behavior, unethical behavior adn behavior not in the oublic interests. We called for DEP investigation based on appearacne alone in these crimianl complaints.
Sorry, I will have to return to repost those excerpts
Wolfe
Frank - In July of 2007, DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson denied a PEER petition for rule-making to force DEP to disclose who them met with (i.e industry lobbyists, lawyers, engineers), and the DEP building sign-in logs. We did this because DEP denied OPRA requests for those documents and we feel that the public should know who their public servants are meeting with.
ReplyDeleteYet at USEPA, Jackson DOES disclose, on EPA website, her calendar. SO does the Obama White House.
Why should DEP keep these meetings secret?
But you are correct that this disclosure and the other reforms we propose will help DEP protect the environment adn benfit the public.
For example, did you even know that current whistleblower laws do not cover disclosure of risks to human health and the environment? Or mismanagement> Or manipulation of science?
Frank - you are dismissing straw men - you should work off the reform platform, not the press release. Reform ideas were put in bullet form in the press release, but the platform puts a little more meat on the bones.
ReplyDeleteThe transparency, disclosure, and whistleblower recommendations are real adn reasoanble documented, with links to some regulatory documents.
BTW< don't yu recall that during the SRP LSP debate, I kept saying that the big problem in teh cleanup programn at DEP was political intervention, adn that DEP failed to adopt risk based site rankings so as to enable political intervention?
Case managers are asked to drop all work to respond to Smith like requests. Priorities are set politically, Case managers are reassigned if they don't ben to industry and political pressure. This current situation validates all those points and completely destroys the arguments for privatization (DEP deployed 7 staffers in responding to Smith - how many man hours?)
Wolfe
Somebody really needs to rid the state of these "enviro-terrorists" so that we can implement real environmental controls that will also allow for development and jobs.
ReplyDeleteFrank - A few days back, I promised that other shoes would drop on the DEP scientific integrity issue - well here's one (more to follow):
ReplyDeleteFor Immediate Release: Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Contact: Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
DUPONT PRESSES JERSEY TO WATER DOWN PFOA RISK ASSESSMENT
Industry Consultants Get Closed Door Access to State Drinking Water Institute
Washington, DC - DuPont is urgently pressing state regulators to lower a potentially multi-billion dollar water clean-up tab for a chemical once hailed as a miracle for consumers but now seen as a looming health menace. The key battleground is New Jersey, where an effort to finalize tough standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in nonstick cookware and stain resistant fabrics, has reached a critical stage, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
New Jersey is ground zero in the fight because -
* It is widely polluted with the chemical. The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) survey of drinking-water systems found PFOA in 78 percent of those tested; and
* After much resistance, DEP has published a risk assessment that supports a very strict limit on PFOA in drinking water - a standard that if enacted and enforced would stick DuPont, a major manufacturer of PFOAs, with a massive groundwater remediation bill.
In an unusual move, DuPont consultants are being allowed to make a presentation to the state Drinking Water Quality Institute which develops recommended standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water. On August 7, Dr. Robert Tardiff of the Sapphire Group, which is advising DuPont, will speak on PFOA risk assessment. There has not been public notice of this meeting and it is unclear if the public or press may attend. Significantly, the meeting is with the full Institute rather than with its Health Effects Subcommittee which is responsible for recommending health based levels for the contaminants.
"This departure from protocol seems to be an attempt to sway members of the Institute before they have a chance to analyze DEP's own risk assessment," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the Institute is not bound by state open meeting laws. "Polluters should not get a seat at the table where it is decided how harmful their pollution is."
At the same time, DuPont consultants and representatives have peppered DEP with voluminous document requests filed under the state Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to obtain every scrap of paper generated by any DEP scientist connected with its scientific risk assessment that was finally published in May 2009. These OPRA requests not only demand all official records but also any "communications (internal and external), drafts, changes, personal notes", among other items.
"These OPRA requests are tantamount to combing through someone's underwear drawer to find dirty laundry," added Ruch, pointing out that DEP has a history of withholding even final versions of documents when requested by environmental groups such as PEER. "The question is whether DEP will support its scientists or feed them to industry wolves."
At its January 27th meeting, the Institute voted to put development of PFOA standards on its 2009 work-plan. Until a standard is finalized, DEP is using a guidance level of .04 parts per billion, the same level established by the DEP risk assessment which is more than 150 times more stringent than the standard that the Sapphire Group and DuPont are pushing.
###
See the OPRA requests filed by DuPont consultants and representatives
Look at the invitation for DuPont private presentation to the Drinking Water Quality Institute
View the PFOA is safe Sapphire Group study
Compare the New Jersey DEP Risk Assessment for PFOA recommending tighter restrictions
Visit the Drinking Water Quality Institute website
Frank - check out ENS today - see what a big story you are missing right here in your own backyard: Wolfe
ReplyDeleteBattle Over Chemical Used to Make Non-Stick Pans Heats Up
TRENTON, New Jersey, August 6, 2009 (ENS) - A large manufacturer and user of a chemical in non-stick cookware and stain resistant fabrics is pressing New Jersey state regulators to reduce what could amount to a multi-billion dollar water cleanup bill.
The tug-of-war between the state of New Jersey and DuPont over perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, in drinking water has reached a critical stage, according to documents posted Wednesday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER.
In an unusual move, DuPont consultants are being allowed to make a presentation to the state Drinking Water Quality Institute which develops recommended standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water.
On Friday, Dr. Robert Tardiff of the Sapphire Group, which is advising DuPont, will speak to the Institute on PFOA risk assessment. The meeting is with the full Institute rather than with its Health Effects Subcommittee which is responsible for recommending health based levels for the contaminants.
(go to ENS for full story)