You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #13: more -- sneaky under-the-radar move [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. more -- sneaky under-the-radar move
The Christie administration appears to be moving quietly behind the scenes to take the next step in privatizing the Department of Environmental Protection, without filling the public or the Legislature in on the plan. Environmental advocates who’ve learned about this plan are understandably alarmed.

Here’s the story: The Treasury Department has just issued a Request for Proposals on behalf of the DEP. Treasury is seeking a private contractor who will review and process a variety of DEP land use permits, including applications to develop in wetlands, flood hazard areas, and riparian areas.

This raises some very troubling questions. Why is this being done with no public debate? Where are the safeguards that should make the public comfortable that these private contractors will be properly screened and supervised? Or is this merely an end-run around civil service requirements and union contracts, so DEP can replace those pesky employees who often say no with more sympathetic contract permit reviewers?

To be fair, DEP and other state agencies have occasionally used private contractors to help with paperwork backlogs. Yet the job description for these new contractors far exceeds the role that “temps” would normally play, and few application backlogs exist in this down economy. In fact, when describing the qualifications that successful bidders should have, the RFP mimics the requirements of several DEP job descriptions.

Further, the RFP states that the contractor would be responsible for determining administrative completeness of applications, conducting the technical review of the application, writing the final permit decision document and then recommending to the appropriate DEP supervisor whether the permit should be approved or denied. Given these responsibilities, it is hard to imagine how a DEP land-use supervisor could do anything but accept the contractor’s recommendation.


http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2010/09/a_stealth_move_to_privatize_la.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC