It's 2018, Not 1968
On Tuesday February 20th a judge's ruling will decide whether the UCDC will have an open or closed ballot election for Chairperson. All eyes are on Union County. I have never been so proud to be a resident, as well as a candidate, and slightly embarrassed that we march into court for a ruling that should have been totally unnecessary and avoidable given the current tense atmosphere in this country. The Democratic Party is the party of the people. The party of hope, champions for immigrants, women, civil rights, equality and voting rights just to name a few. This particular fight is amongst Democrats in Union County. Many fellow Democratic comrades within and outside of Union County have expressed their fascination and amazement that this issue has escalated to this very public level.
First, let's not gloss over the voter intimidation or suppression factor that is the crux of this matter. For the privileged few who have never felt fear based on your voting choice or support, that possibly could effect your employment, consider yourself "in" the minority. This situation is real and fluid.
Anthony Salters
(Hillside Democratic Chairman ) and Candidate for UCDC Chairperson
In 2009-2010 the City of Plainfield, during the Sharon Robinson-Briggs administration, hatched a scheme to award a job training contract to a former City Council President, utilizing the bulk of a $270,000 Community Services Block Grant tied to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus). It was an end run around the federal Workforce Investment Act that established One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Boards, and Eligible Training Provider Lists throughout the country. With the unanimous consent of the City Council, which at the time included current Freeholder Linda Carter and Mayor Adrian Mapp, it was an illegal use of CSBG funds. At the same time it ripped off Plainfield residents of a singular opportunity for real legitimate job training, it was the politically expedient move. Senator Scutari's office was contacted but the best it could offer was a robo-response. These politicians are very flexible when weighing public need against political expediency (their political careers) and way-too-frequently their own taxpayer-funded day jobs and appointments. So often it seems that political ambition is paramount to doing right by their constituents, even in the simple matter of offering a thoughtful response. As a result, I am no fan of Scutari and believe his commitment to Plainfield is thin as ice. But on the matter of the Open vs. Secret vote for UCDC chair, I am in agreement. Committee members are publicly elected, and their votes, as our representatives, should be there for all to see. This a lot different than casting a vote in a primary or general election, where your only constituent is yourself. Those who are calling for a secret vote are putting their own transient political standing above the public's right to know where their reps stand and what they are doing in our name. If it ends in intra-party retribution, then let the public take its own revenge in June or November. At least we would have some basis on which to make a reasoned decision.