Sept 1, 2010
Executive Director of The N.J. Ethics Commission, Kathleen Weichnik,
When Sen. Corzine gave up his Office to Rep. Menendez, such constituted unethical behavior, that teetered and fell upon the jurisdiction of your office.
Simply put, what if Sen. Corzine gave up his seat to Rep. Menendez, because Rep. Menendez asked Sen. Corzine to run for governor, so Rep. Menendez could become an incumbent senator. Then Sen. Corzine never really wanted to become governor of his own free will – an inappropriate candidate through an inappropriate form.
The only reason for this behavior is to enable one party to shift through the senate seat, while procuring the governorship from the vantage point of a senator; it’s simply to secure more elected seats; And that’s not in the interest of the state. That is why it is never done, and why many states don’t allow a senator to pick their replacement.
Governor Corzine must be asked if there was any coercion of his decision to forsake his senate seat for a governorship. The appearance alone of the instance I cite, should be enough incentive to address this issue.
I affirm your charter commands you evolve ethics law to meet situations.
I affirm conflict of interest is here in that Gov. Corzine may have been influenced by the interest of Sen. Menendez.
This is an important issue lingering over the state, there is an obvious ethical gap allowing a senator to run for governor and appoint who he pleases, and I hope you tell me why you think the way you do.
An issue seems to be whether our representative state government, can be considered participatory, as Plato deemed necessary for a democracy, through the interaction of office and the people.
In the breadth of experience, these considerations are little.
THEN DONNA SCHMITZ OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE WROTE:
Deputy Director Holmes already responded to the first issue addressed in your 10/06/10 e-mail. With respect to your suggestion that a committee be commissioned to address this issue, please be advised that the State Ethics Commission has no authority to take such action.
With respect to your second issue, please be advised that the State Ethics Commission administers and enforces the Conflicts of Interest Law with respect to employees and appointees in the executive branch of State government and has no jurisdiction over federal or county employees.
BECAUSE I HAD WRITTEN THEM :
From: Vic Fedorov [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:30 PM
Subject: I sent two correspondences in the past month and have not received a reply.
I sent two correspondences in the past month and have not received a reply.
The first responded to Mark Holmes claim that conflict of interest between state employee and the issue of local government in lieu of the initiation of our present form of local government by state constitution is unavoidable, by saying it may be avoided through the commissioning of a committee to address this issue of making decisions in local peaceful assembly and such consistency with the protection of peaceful assembly, the reservation of powers to state or people, not local officials, and the protection of the 14th amendment herein, and the neglect of this route poses a material and substantial conflict of interest between state government and the aforesworn goal of government. This correspondence is visible at
https://vicfedorov.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/regarding-appealing-ethics-commissions-executive-directors-claim-of-jurisdiction/ I wish to add this issue is unique in providing a direct conflict with the personal and financial interests of local officials.
I also submitted a complaint regarding the ethics of the story of governor Corzine moving to hudson county from ny state to be eligible to run for senator, and then giving up his senate post to Mr. Menendez upon winning the race for governor, who is from Hudson County, and former county executive there. This is very suspicious, and unaddressed, or even acknowledged as received, speaks very poorly of your commission. This correspondence may be view at—
Do you have anything to say on your behalf regarding the lack of response of a challenge to authority currently accepting these unethical and illegal situations?
That you run away from refuting these claims implies they are true, for if they were false, you would assert so. So what am I to do?
THEN TO RESPOND TO THE LAST POINTS OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY:
Dear Donna Schmitz,
1)The commission may issue a guideline through its plain language ethics guide, such as an advisory opinion or procedure reminding executive officials of a particular obligation to rarer or specific specie of issue such as local decision-making, that question our state constitution.
You may improve ethical behavior by advising on the phenomena of apparatchik, whereby one part of the state just supports another part; reminding officials of the ethical understandings of government. Remind officials of the obligation to protect local peaceful assembly made decisions, in a state where such has been usurped by local officials, to compensate for the lapse in state constitutional law.
Section 21(o) of the Conflicts Law directs the Commission to prepare, and ensure distribution to each State officer and employee and special State officer and employee in the Executive Branch, a plain language ethics guide designed to provide a clear and concise summary of the laws, regulations, codes, orders, procedures, advisory opinions and rulings concerning applicable ethical standards. The goal of this guide is to promote ethical day-to-day decision making, to give general advice regarding conduct and situations, to provide easy reference to sources, and to explain the role, activities and jurisdiction of the Commission. Each State officer and employee and special State officer and employee must certify that he or she has received the guide, reviewed it and understands its provisions.”
“52:13D-12. Legislative findings
The Legislature finds and declares:
(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.”
Avoidance of the issue of local decision making by local officials generates mistrust, compels the ethics commission to rudder the executive branch of government; from the civil rights division, to department of community affairs, to the division of law; by virtue of the state constitution’s institutionalization of local officials.
This avoidance is both avoidable, through your literature; and a substantive conflict of interest between the state as it is, and the state of NJ’s interest: Take on what is wrong by evolving ethical guidelines.
Observe a clear lapse in functional state behavior regarding a serious and beneficial issue, community decision-making. Identify its cause, remedy by ethics guideline; particular issues of local government, respectful to input that construes to expose grievous error; Humility qualifies Authority as consciously and transparently justifying itself, inherent to authority is addressing challenges.
2) Governor Corzine headed the executive branch. If his interest was poisoned by the interests that had him leave the senate, a lackluster performance based on unethical operations, should be purveyed for the taints and shadows of how he got to office; whereby natural interests are dwarfed and inhibited. Guardians of executive office, concerned with professional psychological and detrimental assertions that one’s initiative and will, a relationship with the people, have been divorced from the professional domain from being coerced out of a senate seat, are needed.
52:13D-12. Legislative findings
The Legislature finds and declares:
(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.
You have the opportunity to give Jon the opportunity for some redemption if this is true.
I also have to warn you that not acknowledging the receipt of the Corzine issue looks guilty; as if because he appointed your bosses, they know this already, or have a loyalty to hushing this up.
One last note: If you take the tenth amendment seriously, there is a simple correlation between mayors appointing municipal judges, and the situation of running as a senator for governor.
On October 21rst, Donna Schmitz sent this:
The State Ethics Commission administers and enforces the Conflicts of Interest Law with respect to employees and appointees in the executive branch of State government. With limited exceptions, the actions of the Governor, however, are not covered by the Conflicts of Interest Law. The issues you raised with respect to former Governor Corzine are not within the jurisdiction of the State Ethics Commission. Former Governor Corzine was subject to a Code of Conduct for the Governor that was established pursuant to Executive Order 1 (Corzine) and interpreted/applied by an Advisory Ethics Panel which is separate and apart from the State Ethics Commission. The Advisory Ethics Panel was also created pursuant to Executive Order 1 (Corzine).
Thank you for your inquiry.
The problem with this response citing guidelines Corzine put in as governor, is they displace the ethical focus from party politics that got him there, to a strict accounting of financial interest, which as very rich, the governor is not prone to succumbing to. This is a diversionary technique.
still required ”
WHEREAS, I am committed to establishing an administration that adheres to the highest ethical standards and enhances public trust in government; and WHEREAS, public officials must avoid conduct that violates the public trust or creates an appearance of impropriety; and”
The whole point is that being governor does not stem from letting another be senator. In some way the governors ship is an interest that pays for the senate seat, and thus is an entity other than what it is intended, and capable of mitigating proper discharge of duties.