Dear Editor:
What a year! From state takeover, through a brutal election cycle to the election and sudden resignation of Peter Cammarano resulting in the elevation of Dawn Zimmer from Council President to Acting Mayor/Council President, to another election , Hoboken continues to roil. Before proceeding, please allow me to disgorge my support for Peter, whose fall from Grace, pains me personally. My lamination can wait but the sanctity of government cannot.
There are several truisms and principals that are inviolate: there is none more dictatorial than a pseudo-reformer, you can’t win a land war in South-East Asia, but the most important are the concepts of checks and balances and the separation of powers which the “Founders” wisely implied in our Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Federal Government’s pinnacle position over subordinate local governments, forming a vertical infrastructure from states down to the smallest hamlet, governed under an iteration of the Constitution. This is demonstrated in the oath New Jersey elected official swear or affirm upon taking office.
And this worked, until Dawn Zimmer conflated executive with legislative. This is not the first time the Mayor’s seat sat empty. Sadly, I recall the untimely death of a great son of Hoboken, Tommy Vezzetti. Tommy’s passing left Hoboken grief stricken and without a mayor but also spurred marathon council meetings in search of an Interim Mayor. When Patrick Pasculli was chosen, he immediately resigned his Council seat, governed Hoboken and prepared for a brutal re-election. There was never a thought of what was fair for Patty, only what was in the best interest of Hoboken. During a dark period Patty ennobled public service by placing community before self.
Today’s Hoboken finds an opportunist government operating under the aegis of “Positional Ethics” – a form of hypocritical rationalization which accepts and promotes behavior, guised as altruistic, in oneself and comrades otherwise deemed egregious or illegal in other. Applying Positional Ethics, Dawn and her acolytes defend this acknowledged “conflict of interest” by quantifying the duration of the conflict, as if brevity absolution, while steamrolling over the objections of disbelievers who view this as implementing an agenda honed during her failed Mayoral campaign.
Whatever the motivation, a new precedent has been established and although Dawn is the instant example, she is far from a sole practitioner. Too many would be leaders view the world through a prism of political self-preservation and, operate as if the “end justifies the means”. More still view “the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, constitutes a conflict of interest”, hollow words from a bygone era. Enablers, blinded by the polarizing “us versus them” politics of today, may live to rue their complicity in negating the role good coherent policy plays in transcending evanescent governments when turnabout become fair play.
Please believe that I do not like Dawn less, but adherence to policy more, and that this letter penned no matter the name of the mayor. For posterity’s protection, I implore that any loophole which may have been exploited be closed promptly, preventing recurrence of this anomalous situation.
Thank you for your many courtesies,
I remain,
Perry Belfiore