Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie/Archive 2

2014 Affordable Care Act marketing money & Credit rating under 2011 budget?
Why? Djflem (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I refactored the TOC adding a top heading for all budget and financial sections. Hope that helps. Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

‎Pay to Play allegation involving Charles Baker of Massachusetts
CFredkin, how does the NJ Treasury Department's reportedly illegal conduct fail to relate to Christie's governorship? JackGavin (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the question is: what does it have to do with Christie's administration?  As far as I can tell, there aren't even allegations of wrongdoing on their part.  The allegations have to do with questionable donations by Baker.CFredkin (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to look at this more closely. I actually saw an article on the subject (not sure if it was the one cited) and was thinking of adding it myself but I got sidetracked. What I can tell you is that the sources are making the connection. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Either this goes to Governorship of Chris Christie or at Chris Christie, your choice, CFredkin. Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Pando headline is: "EXCLUSIVE: Christie officials gave millions in public funds to VC firm, despite “pay to play” rules". Both Baker and NJ Treasury apparently violated the law/regulations.  I guess the article text could have been clearer on that point. JackGavin (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From Pando article:

New Jersey Division of Treasury rules state that “the Division of Investment shall not engage an investment management firm to provide investment management services” if within two years prior “any political contribution or payment to a political party (has) been made or paid by… any investment management professional associated with such investment management firm.” The rules define “political party” as “any political party or political committee organized in this State,” which the New Jersey Republican State Committee and the Christie reelection campaign most certainly are. ... In terms of state statutes, New Jersey law bans any of the state government’s “purchasing agents or agencies or those of its independent authorities” from offering a contract to any “business entity” that has “made any contribution of money… to any State or county political party committee within the eighteen months immediately preceding the commencement of negotiations for the contract.” Baker’s contribution came seven months before the Christie administration released its pension investment proposal, and the law stipulates that its definition of “business entity” includes “natural or legal person(s).”


 * That is, NJ Treasury failed to comply with the rules and with the statute, when it offered the contract to General Catalyst. (Baker/Catalyst failed, too.) JackGavin (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Belleville
CFredkin, my last edit of the Belleville Sandy funding discussion was structured into two paragraphs, distinguishing background and events through May 2013 versus when the Sandy funding source became public.

Your insertion of "FEMA Sandy priority" text into the first paragraph muddies this.

And I'm baffled by your removal of the "initially described as coming from community development block grant" text and its supporting Lee-2013-05-29 cite, since that's exactly what the contemporaneous report has: "The developer, Mill Street Urban Renewal LLC, is funding the project through state Community Development Block Grants, federal low income tax credits and subsidies from the Essex County HOME program, officials said." and the word "Sandy" does not appear.


 * The above statement is supported by a source from May 2013. It's not contemporaneous.  You're making the connection and that's original research.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It was contemporaneous to the groundbreaking ceremony in May 2013. I am not aware of any different description from that time or earlier. The Friedman-2014-01-28 cite specifies "Community Development Block Grants" as federal Sandy funds: "One third of the cost — $6 million — is being paid for by a $1.8 billion pot of federally funded Community Development Block Grants to help the state recover from Sandy." Do we just need to add that cite to the first? JackGavin (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless the Jan Star-Ledger article says: "One third of the cost — $6 million — is being paid for by a $1.8 billion pot of federally funded Community Development Block Grants to help the state recover from Sandy."  So I think using the term "initially described" in this article makes it sounds like the funding source has changed, which it apparently has not. If that phrase is removed, I think any mention of Community Development Block Grants is superfluous.CFredkin (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Initially described" means with absolutely no mention of Sandy, in May 2013. Later, Sandy was linked.  That's a change in description.  I am not positing a change in actual source.
 * I did not want to say "Initially ... without mentioning Sandy", because the source does not say "I am not mentioning Sandy".
 * How about "Initially described merely as..." ? (Italics for Talk only) JackGavin (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't take the fact that Sandy is not mentioned in one article and claim that there was no connection between Sandy and the project at that time. That is definitely original research.CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Other cite says only DiVincenzo mentioned Sandy at the groundbreaking speeches, and only in passing. The fact that the funds were (later) linked to Sandy is what became news. JackGavin (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That has no bearing on what I said previously.CFredkin (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you will find this an adequate cite for the January 2014 news being that it was Sandy money: "According to the Associated Press last month [January], however, Christie allegedly diverted $6 million to the project from Hurricane Sandy relief funds, even though Belleville wasn’t hit as hard as some other areas of the state by the late October 2012 superstorm, particularly the Jersey shore." and "Concerning Christie and the Sandy relief money that was possibly being used for Franklin Manor, [Councilman] Rovell said last week that his understanding was that there may have been money set aside for a new generator, possibly for the new complex, but not Sandy money." from The Record. The fact of it being Sandy money was a January revelation. JackGavin (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We're talking about whether Sandy was a factor in the initial announcement in May 2013. You've not provided a source supporting the statement that it was not.  You can't cite an article from May 2013 which doesn't mention Sandy as proof that Sandy was not a factor and you can't cite articles from 2014 when the subject was newsworthy as proof that Sandy was not a factor in 2013 either.  That's original research.CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At first, we we talking about "initially". How about we drop "initially", and say "State funds from community development block grants" in the May 2013 context, followed in paragraph 2 by "January 2014 reports of Sandy money"? Is that solid enough? JackGavin (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether I follow...If you're suggesting that we change the sentence as follows: "State funding from community development block grants was later upped to $10.2 million." Then I'm ok with that.CFredkin (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it, in paragraph 1. In paragraph 2, the January coverage of Sandy linkage gets its due, with Constable response, etc. JackGavin (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not object to your FEMA text being moved into the second paragraph, to clarify "Sandy-affected seniors" while preserving the before-and-after distinction. Can we agree to move it there, and restore the "community development block grant to the first paragraph? JackGavin (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am performing the edits described above, since there was no response in two hours. Any objection first here, please, rather than in the article. JackGavin (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, I do not understand your claim that the Star-Ledger is not a Reliable Source for a Star-Ledger editorial. JackGavin (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, my concern has more to do with WP:undue, the entire Belleville "incident" appears only to have been covered by the Star-Ledger. However it currently has 3 paragraphs in the article.CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be most helpful if your editing comments reflected your actual reasoning. I haved added cites to the AP and The Belleville Times.  It's in 3 paragraphs because it's a complicated story that took months to bloom, but if you can suggest more concise text, do so. I genuinely appreciate the "Mayor Kimble" attribution you added to "no displaced residents." JackGavin (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ALEC
Cross-posting from Talk:Chris Christie:

I'm a heavy contributor over at ALEC and I recently came across a duo of sources that would seem worthy of inclusion here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion summary
Does anyone else feel that the section titled "Public opinion summary" is far too detailed for an encyclopedia? Personally I see much of this material as recentism and I think it should be condensed considerably in light of the ten-year test. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper. If the length of this section reaches a point that is unwieldy, we have WP:SUMMARY, that is create a new article with the content, and then summarize here. But to suggest that it is too detailed, well, think of the reader! At this time, the section is not too long, but maybe at the end of his tenure as Governor, we could split and summarize. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?  - Absolutely. It shows the progression of the public opinion on the Governorship over the years. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll bet that progression could be summarized in a paragraph or two. A paragraph on every single poll is gross overkill. Just imagine if Barack Obama had a paragraph for every poll. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. In any case, the option is always there to spin a sub article and summarize here. Again, WP:NOTPAPER. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your repeated references to WP:NOTPAPER. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read it? It explains my point quite well (my highlights). There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content and Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not following. My proposal to consolidate isn't based on the overall size of Wikipedia (which is what WP:NOTPAPER is about) or even article size. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The section seems to be morphing into a collection of cherry-picked poll results. I think we should stick with one poll in order to show results that are comparable over time. It seems like the PublicMind poll is most prevalent, so suggest that we stick with that one.CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of you have good points. If you want to attempt this, please write up a proposed summary here in talk. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should confine ourselves to one polling source. Polling sources are well known to have their own biases. Better is to summarize using meta sources that themselves look at the larger trends (across sources, across dates, or even better, both) -- if they exist. If they don't, polls should be summarized in aggregate. This would not be WP:SYNTH if done carefully. Take a look at how this was done (properly, in my view) in a single paragraph in the lead section of Presidency of George W. Bush. (Note, I'm not saying we should put this material in the lead or that it should be a single paragraph. 2-3 paragraphs would be concise enough in my view.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Give it a go. We can use WP:BRD if it does not work. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just a kibitzer in this article space. NJ politics are definitely not my thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oy vey! So, it may stay like this unless CFredkin wants to give it a shot. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Credit downgrading
The summary of the credit downgrading should be the lead for that section. The key is that credit rating under the stewardship of Christie has been downgraded eight times (!!!), and that should be at the top of that section, not at the bottom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article?

 * This has discussion has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey to access a broader range of opinion.Djflem (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This material has been deleted from the article. This RFC seeks to find consensus about the relevance of this material in this article.


 * CORRECTION: Schools in New Jersey are run by municipalities or, as in the case of Newark and some other cites, by the state, There no entity, the New Jersey Public School system. The issue here is the stated-operated Newark Public Schools and the One Newark school reorganization plan.

Survey

 * Support
 * New Jersey Public Schools fall under the Department of Education of the state of New Jersey and directly under the control of the governorship of New Jersey
 * The restructuring program called One Newark was put in place by Chris Christie appointeee Newark Schools Superintendent Cami Anderson
 * In Chritie’s own word: “Christie to Newark: We run the school district” http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/christie_to_newark_we_run_the_school_district.html
 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The mere fact that something falls under the jurisdiction of a state, doesn't make everything related to it encyclepedic to an article on the subject administration. What should be the standard for inclusion?  If it's as open as this, the article is going to be outrageously large, and of no value to anyone.  That should be clear to anyone, regardless of their motives in editing.  John2510 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Although NJ runs the Newark public school system, not everything that occurs in the Newark public school system is fodder for an article on Christie's Governorship. Personally I think content should be considered for inclusion if Christie is actually mentioned in the source(s).CFredkin (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It might be OK to mention some of the issues surrounding the Nerwark public school system in the article, but dedicating a whole section to it seems a little undue. NickCT (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * The school district has been a ward of the state for the entirety of the Christie administration.
 * I restored the content (before I saw the discussion here -- sorry!)
 * I'm not opposed to editing it for conciseness. JackGavin (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What more do you want? According to Christie "We run the school district, not them.” It was he who appeared on Oprah to accept the |$100 million bucks from Facebook that was the impetus for the One Newark re-restructing plan being implemented by his hand-picked superintendent. It is an controversial, experimental, new way of organising public education with statewide (since NJ taxpayers are footing the bill) and possibly national (the privatizing certain schools using tax dollars) being administered by Christie appointees. What does NOT have to do with the Christie administration?Djflem (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support


 * Oppose inclusion: I have close to zero knowledge of NJ politics. When I read the proposed material my immediate reaction is, "What does this have to do with the Christie administration?" The right way to do this is to focus solely on the connections to the subject of the article (i.e. the Christie administration). The remaining material might belong at Newark Public Schools, but not here. At least as written, the only connection I can see is a single comment Christie made. It also doesn't seem like a particularly notable comment relative to other topics covered in this article. If a single, non-notable comment by the governor were enough to get even a mention in this article then this article would blow away all WP size guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion  This article should rationally deal with materially directly and visibly connected with the governor involved, not a mélange of every topic which is remotely connected with the state of New Jersey.  Collect (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remotely connected? Are you reading the sources and Christie's own words? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the claim that is not directly and visibly connected to the Christie administration and it's responsibilities. Chris Christie personally appeared on the Oprah Winfrey to collect $100million from Mark Zuckerman and set the ball rolling. Christie. Christie personally handpicked the Superintendent of Newark Public Schools and he has personally stood behind the reorganisation by claiming that the state and not the community control's the school system. But that's all beside the point anyway since that's his personal involvement We are talking about his administration and not him: How can an agency for which his administration is directly responsible not be about his administration? The reorganisation has received national attention in the English language media. To help you further understand NJ politics and the role that the Christie administration plays in the One Newark plan, please read.

____
 * http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-gave-jersey-100-130400933.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/19/clergy-warn-christie-your-newark-school-reform-is-a-mess/
 * http://www.nj.com/education/2013/12/hundreds_blast_christie_and_su.html
 * http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/look_out_chris_christie_the_new_war_on_public_schools_just_might_be_defeated/
 * http://www.thenation.com/article/180044/newark-school-reform-wars#
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/nyregion/rebuke-of-charter-schools-is-seen-in-newark-election.html?_r=0
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2014/03/31/is-one-newark-reorganization-plan-good-for-newark-students/


 * Um -- I should point out that arguing with folks in this type of RfC is more likely than not to convince no one at all except for the person persisting in arguing. Any closer will take the position of the person expressing a !vote into far more account than the iterated opinions of anyone who seeks to "answer" such !votes with accusations of any sort at all.  Cheers.  IOW, the suggestion is to let opinions expressed by those who oppose your opinion stand without comment - and do not try to argue with everyone who demurs with your position.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No offence. Perhaps the location of my comment is misplaced and should be under the discussion heading, but nonetheless the question remains. Can you explain what you mean by the phrase. 'directly and visibly connected' with the governor involved? It is offered a rationale for a vote, but does little to explain the reasoning behind it What you consider to be acceptable material regarding the governorship and administration of Chris Christie? Specifically can you explain how this material about Newark Public Schools and the state implemented plan is not relevant to article? I am do my best to offer an explanation of my position and hopefully you will see my question as a chance to explain yours. Thanks Djflem (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems that some people here are not providing a rationale for inclusion that stands any scrutinity. The closer will very likely notice this, as this is not a vote. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the quote provided with this reference to see if this satisfies the direct and visible criteria: Djflem (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First off,, please be sure to sign your talk page comments with four tildes ( ~ ). Second, how is this notable and worthy of inclusion? Christie says lots of stuff that isn't in this article. How is this any different? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Christie says a lot of stuff which isn't in the article, but of course we not discussing the all the stuff Christie says. We are discussing the controversial One Newark restructuring plan being implemented by his administration. So, can we confine it to that? Can you explain how an issue which has received extensive media attention, generally consider considered the defining issue of the 2014 mayoral election, and now is the subject of a civil rights investigation by the United States Department of Education not notable for inclusion in the article?Djflem (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * When speaking to Mayor of Newark Ras Baraka about the education system Christie said "the state runs the school system, I am the decider, and you have nothing to do with it.”


 * I believe you that this is a very important controversy, and I'm sure you can find a place in this encyclopedia for it. Why not Newark Public Schools? That seems much more fitting, and no one has explained why the proposed language doesn't belong there. The question for this article is not how the controversy is notable, but how the pieces of the controversy that involve the Christie governorship are notable enough to merit inclusion alongside the other material that's covered here. If there are lots of equally or less notable events that aren't covered in this article, then that might be seen as a clue that the proposed material doesn't belong either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that that some version of the material could easily be added to the Newark Public Schools article and the Chris Christie article since he has claimed the One Newark plan as a priority in the education policy of NJ. I have have provided lot of research material and many formatted references for any one wanting to use them. But, but given the nature of how Wikipedia is built, there being " lots of equally or less notable events that aren't covered in this article" is not a gauge for whether this material should be included. There's lot's of fluff included and lot's of "important stuff" missing, and the article in general more meaningful content contributions, and IMO a lot less commentary.Djflem (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
To encourage us all to find a compromise, note that consensus can be argued for exclusion as well as for inclusion, so we may need to find common ground along the lines of what was proposed above by JackGavin and NickCT. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The core discussion should be to define a standard for inclusion of issues that fall under the jurisidction of the state - lest this article become of regurgitation of everything, good, bad, and indifferent, that has occurred in the state of New Jersey since the moment Christie was sworn in. John2510 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This has national implications: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/05/12/in-newark-educators-and-politicos-await-latest-issue-of/ or better yet read the very comprehensive New Yorker article if possible. (plenty of Christie mentions if sourcing is the issue). The school plan is now also subject of a racial discrimination suit being heard but the United State Department of Education: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20140724_U_S__is_probing_Newark_schools.htmlDjflem (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I propose the following text:

CFredkin (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Same objection as above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me as a compromise. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good compromise to me, too. I would just edit the first line, which might as given be interpreted as saying that the state had control only for a one- or two-year period.  Perhaps "The state has been running the Newark district continuously since the beginning of the 1994-1995 school year." JackGavin (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have been hesitate to react, and had hoped to be able to offer some other suggestions to compromise proposal. Think Newark Public Schools has been state-operated since the 1994-1995 school year. Also think detail of neighbourhoods/bus could be cut. (but not ref, which is a very comprehensive article)Djflem (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Grady deserves own subsection?
Right now, State Investment Council chair Robert E. Grady's apparent conflict of interest, in the investment of NJ pension funds into his own companies, is covered as an afterthought in the Charles Baker section.

While there are some ties and similarities, I think Grady is a separate issue, deserving of its own section headline, which would also allow better focus and chronology in the Baker section.

I propose either of these:

"Alleged conflict of interest of Robert Grady"

"Alleged conflict of interest by State Investment Council chairman" (or "SIC chairman", for brevity)

Please comment. JackGavin (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Went with "Alleged conflict of interest by SIC chairman Robert Grady" JackGavin (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)