Category: Testimony

Social Equity Excise Fee Revenue Should Support Those Harmed Most by Cannabis Prohibition

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Houenou, Vice-Chairman Delgado, and Commissioners of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC). Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Marleina Ubel, a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to championing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

The Social Equity Excise Fee (SEEF) is more than just a financial measure; it’s a vital step towards rectifying the injustices inflicted by the War on Drugs. We’ve seen families torn apart, economic opportunities stifled, and communities of color disproportionately affected by draconian drug policies. The revenue generated by this fee should, under no circumstances, be given to law enforcement agencies, which were the very entities that caused the most harm enforcing cannabis prohibition. Law enforcement already receives the lion’s share of public safety funding even though other social service professions, such as public and mental health professionals, school counselors, and social workers are just as important to public safety.

SEEF revenue must be distributed back not just to municipal governments, but to promoting stronger, safer, and more resilient communities, recognizing substance use as a matter of public health. Crucially, those directly impacted by the War on Drugs must have a voice in how these funds are utilized. We must ensure more legitimate stakeholding.

NJPP advocates for a diverse range of uses for SEEF revenue, from community programs to harm reduction services, acknowledging the successes of states like Colorado, where similar funds have bolstered education, mental health services, and homelessness prevention.

I want to specifically highlight harm reduction services because although the budget is expected to generously fund the programming in Fiscal Year 2025, those funds are a result of the opioid settlement and to maintain this level of funding in the future, the state will need a sustainable revenue stream.

Finally, given the importance of this fee, the CRC should move to increase it — setting SEEF at the maximum allowed by statute, which would still keep New Jersey among some of the lowest taxes on cannabis in the country. However, let’s be clear: equitable distribution is paramount. Municipalities must prioritize racial justice and reparations for those most affected by the War on Drugs. Anything less would betray the very essence of the SEEF’s purpose.

Thank you for your attention.

The Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Ensures Government Transparency and Accountability

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good Morning Chair Karabinchak and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

The bill as currently drafted would gut the public’s access to records that are generated by public dollars by public employees. Rather than support the public’s access, this bill instead erects more obstacles to public access and removes protections that make it possible to combat erroneous denials.

Government records are generated by and for the public. To ensure transparency and accountability for government activity, the public can and should be able to access those records. The entire purpose of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) is to expand and improve public access.

As a research organization, NJPP frequently puts together its reports using public data that it requests from public agencies. Public health data, budget data, and meeting minutes are critical components of understanding how government priorities are set. And as agencies put less and less information on public websites, OPRA has become one of the only ways to obtain this information. As an example, NJPP had to use OPRA to request documents such as:

  • Preschool attendance data
  • NJ Transit budgets and meeting minutes
  • Local law enforcement budgets

 

Already many requests are subject to unexplained delays and erroneous denials. This bill would create even more red tape for requestors and limit access to specialized researchers or moneyed special interests, rather than members of the general public.

Below are just a selection of the different ways in which this bill would harm transparency and the right of the public to understand what it is that government officials and employees are doing with public money and public trust, but at this juncture, I simply urge the committee to vote NO on this bill. No set of amendments can improve what is a tear-down of the entire concept of open records.

Almost every provision in the bill harms public transparency:

  • Expands exemptions:
    • Exempts whole categories of public records: Because of obscure data-keeping policies, members of the public frequently cannot request data because they don’t know what data exists. What email communication occurred, when calls took place, what date a PDF was created – these are critical data for understanding how government decisions are made, especially as more records become electronic.
    • Creates catch-all exemption for anything that may or might lead to disclosure of personal information or harassment: Placing new exemptions for information that “might reasonably lead” to disclosure of personal information and information that the agency “has reason to believe . . . may result in harassment, unwanted solicitation, identity theft, or opportunities for other criminal acts” allows enormous discretion to public agencies to deny requests behind the veneer of protecting the public. This exception is wide enough that it can be used for a denial of almost any information even tangentially related to a specific person or group of people.
    • Creates unbalanced “task force” to study police records: Though special circumstances do often apply to law enforcement records, they are still government records preserved on behalf of the public. Given the strong public interest in accountable policing, any task force should have a clear charge focused on that accountability and its composition should reflect that goal.
  • Increases incentives for non-compliance/denial:
    • Makes fee-shifting discretionary rather than mandatory: The opaque and slow Government Records Council process means that the only effective way to resolve OPRA denial complaints is through the courts. Because these cases do not frequently result in money damages, mandatory fee-shifting is the only incentive for lawyers to take on these cases for citizens.
    • Establishes personal immunity for willful violations: As has been seen in other areas of public employee misconduct, the public ends up paying the bill for the costs of violations and litigation. Eliminating personal immunity for willful violations of OPRA will create more incentive not to comply, because the agency, not the custodian, will be on the hook.
  • Expands red tape
    • Requires correspondence to be on a “specific subject matter” and “discrete and limited time period” from a specific person: Say that a member of the public is interested in finding out about why a municipality made a decision to sell a parcel. The member requests emails pertaining to the sale of the parcel, but does not necessarily know when those emails would have been sent, or even the identity of the relevant employees who made the decision.
    • Allows data to be provided in any format at the discretion of the custodian, even if highly inconvenient: Many records remain only accessible in hard copy. This format is highly inconvenient especially when records are voluminous. Providing records in the requested format when possible aids public access.
    • Extends time period for response from 7 to 14 days “as appropriate”: The bill de facto eliminates seven-day requirements by adding “14 days as appropriate” in a variety of circumstances. No doubt custodians will find it appropriate to use the 14 days rather than seven.
    • Extends time period to review for Daniel’s Law compliance: A perfectly reasonable concern for compliance with state confidentiality law should not necessarily require a 14-day review period to buy additional delays in compliance.
    • Extends time period based on when a request is “received” rather than sent: This creates an incentive to ignore requests or not to open them in a timely manner.
    • Mandates use of the OPRA request form: This simply provides another way to deny an otherwise-legitimate request for not going through the proper portal, especially when many state residents still lack internet access or a vehicle.
    • Limits “commercial” requests: The definition of “commercial” is so broad that it likely includes legitimate purposes. A wide range of businesses use public records. A bill targeting dubious or predatory commercial use requires much more tailoring to ensure that members of the public are not excluded from access.

 

As the members of this committee can no doubt see, this bill represents a wholesale rewriting of the OPRA statute to hide more and more government business behind closed doors. Members of all political parties and backgrounds should see the risks of hiding accountability for government activity.

The FY2025 Budget Should Use Corporate Tax Revenue to Support Public Investments

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good Morning Chair Pintor Marin and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the fiscal year 2025 budget.

The state budget can and should support broad public investments that benefit all New Jerseyans, especially low- and moderate-income residents, while ensuring that sufficient revenue is raised from the wealthy and powerful with the highest ability to pay. These values live in the Governor’s proposal to provide long-needed dedicated funding to NJ Transit with a new fee on corporations earning over $10 million in profits.

Big corporations like Amazon and Walmart have soaked up record profits off of higher prices, while directing those profits to executives and shareholders. By contrast, NJ Transit, the cornerstone of New Jersey’s economic strength, faces a looming $1 billion shortfall in FY 2026 and has already proposed a double-digit fare hike on residents who can hardly afford it.

Yet even the Governor’s proposal is not enough to fill in the revenue the state needs to continue its strong investments in communities. The governor’s proposal would also have the state spending more than it collects in tax revenue for yet another year, further draining the surplus rather than preparing for the next economic downturn.

This is not the time to draw down the surplus: Neither the country nor state are in recession, with record stock prices and low unemployment. Instead, the state needs more revenues – starting with a full reinstatement of the corporation business tax surtax.

The state has seen austerity budgets before, with years of structural deficits and one-shot funding gimmicks that resulted in cuts to essential programs and an empty rainy day fund. There is simply no reason to return to the bad old days when the state is leaving money on the table.

NJPP continues to support a broad range of budgetary improvements that would help New Jerseyans afford the rising cost of living, costs which are especially high for low- and moderate-income households, which are detailed in the attached publication. These include:

  • Raising the benefit amount for Work First New Jersey,
  • Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit,
  • Eliminating the cost of communications for people incarcerated and their families.

 

However, absent new revenues, this year’s budget will remain one of defending programs from cuts, rather than a broader vision for how the state can support economic opportunity for all. This scenario is exactly the one a state with the wealth of New Jersey should be avoiding – pitting program against program, department against department. Instead, broadening and deepening the state’s revenue sources can expand the resources available to help every family and individual thrive.

There is one obvious revenue source: reinstating the full Corporation Business Tax surtax on all corporations with over $1 million in profits. There’s no reason to leave $200 million on the table. But beyond that, the state must look at additional progressive revenues such as stronger corporate tax policies to address tax avoidance, taxes on accumulated wealth, and broadening and modernizing the sales tax.

The Corporate Transit Fee is a step in the right direction and embodies exactly the kind of revenue New Jersey should be generating – asking the corporations and individuals who have seen their wealth soar since the pandemic to pay for the investments that the state needs.

Strong Pretrial Services Lead to a More Just Criminal Legal System

Posted on by Awinna Martinez

Good morning, Chairman Stack and Members of the Senate Judiciary:

My name is Awinna Martinez. I am the Policy Director of the New Jersey Policy Perspective, a nonpartisan think tank focused on state-level policies that advance economic, social, and racial justice. Thank you for having me here today.

Our stated mission at NJPP is to ensure that all of New Jersey’s residents enjoy lives of dignity, opportunity, and economic security. We know the criminal legal system has everlasting and harsh consequences on families and children, financial stability, pathways to education, the workforce, and the fabric of our communities. It is widely known that interactions with the criminal legal system disproportionately impact Black and brown communities.

Criminal legal system reform should not be taken lightly but driven by data and research to create policies that promote public safety while ensuring a fair and equitable system.

New Jersey’s 2017 Criminal Justice Reform (CJR) is a policy informed by long-standing research[i] that eliminating cash bail and reducing pretrial detention address racial disparities in our system without negatively impacting public safety. An early evaluation of the CJR found that arrests dropped significantly in the year following CJR implementation.[ii]  Seven years later, New Jersey has become a pretrial justice leader nationally for significantly decreasing the use of pretrial detention while maintaining the same or better crime rates.[iii]

More than 400,000 individuals are held pretrial across the country, with most unable to pay bail. It is significant that we can say that here in New Jersey, we are not contributing to this alarming trend. We have eliminated “the debtors’ prison” that makes up many other places nationwide.

I want to emphasize how important it is for the state to build on the success of our bail reform laws by investing in better support for justice-involved individuals rather than resorting to misguided rollbacks in response to political pressures. There is no evidence linking increases in crime to individuals on pretrial release.

Our communities are better served by policymakers who focus on strengthening our pretrial system. First, this means committing to a mission focused on treating pretrial services separately from all other stages of the criminal legal system process — pretrial is not probation, parole, or reentry. American jurisprudence presumes these individuals are innocent until the resolution of their case says otherwise. Adopting proposals to increase the number of people exposed to the harms of pretrial detention undercuts the work of this legislature and what the evidence tells us.

Pretrial’s key players (judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and pretrial staff) should operate under the same mission rather than relying on the harms and pressures imposed by pretrial detention. Ensuring the criminal legal system upholds the fundamental rights of a presumption of innocence and due process while delivering timely case resolutions is the way to achieve just, fair, and equitable outcomes.

Second, investing in pretrial services means allocating more funding statewide. In New Jersey, the quality of pretrial services should remain consistent across all counties, no matter where an individual’s criminal matter is situated. Consistency ensures everyone receives the necessary support to navigate their pretrial experience successfully. Compliance with conditions of release and success in the pretrial phase can be achieved through investments in resources in pretrial support systems and agencies that already have a touch point with defendants, such as the Office of the Public Defender and county-level pretrial services staff. Connection to these resources can address an individual’s housing, education, employment, and health care needs.

I want to close by sharing that before joining NJPP, I spent my career focused on criminal legal reform, focusing on diversion and alternatives to incarceration. For three years, I oversaw a pretrial services agency entirely staffed by case managers and social workers, whose main goals were to respond to individual needs and provide resources and programming when possible.

Drawing from personal experience, I witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of increased funding on staffing levels and providing supportive services that did not rely on a law enforcement approach. We had a compliance rate of almost 90%, even during the height of the pandemic, when operations had to move remotely. We attributed this success to the supportive services model that allowed us to use a wraparound human-centric approach. These investments enable pretrial services to offer individualized attention and comprehensive case management, addressing any underlying needs that could hinder an individual’s progress during the pretrial stage.

In New Jersey, we have seen our incarceration rate decrease significantly.[iv] This allows individuals to return home, support their families, maintain employment, and ensure some measure of stability while their case is being resolved. But we know there is more work to do. New Jersey continues to have the worst racial disparities in the country, where a Black adult is 12 times more likely to be incarcerated than a white adult. Any steps policymakers take in addressing our system should be to make it stronger–changes rooted in equity and fairness–not informed by what we think makes public safety work but instead by what we know.  It is critical to understand the data and research and balance this with understanding the harms that we know occur to individuals, families, and communities when we over-police and over-incarcerate.

Thank you.

[i] Schnake, Timothy R., Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform, September 2014, Chapter 4: Pretrial Research, pp 64-85, http://static.nicic.gov.s3.amazonaws.com/Library/028360.pdf

[ii] Anderson et.al, Evaluation of Pretrial Justice System Reforms that Use the Public Safety Assessment: Effects of New Jersey’s Criminal Justice Reform, November 2019, https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Report_%231.pdf

[iii] Staudt, Sarah, Releasing people pretrial doesn’t harm public safety, Prison Policy Initiative, July 6, 2023, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2023/07/06/bail-reform/

[iv] Hernandez, Amanda, Releasing suspects pretrial doesn’t lead to higher crime rates, experts say, February 22, 2024, https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/02/22/releasing-suspects-pretrial-doesnt-lead-to-higher-crime-rates-experts-say/

Fare Hikes Will Not Fix NJ Transit’s Structural Financial Issues

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Alex Ambrose and I’m a policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective. I am here today to ask you to stand up for riders and refuse to raise fares or cut service, both of which will have devastating financial consequences for commuters and our state’s lowest-income families.

NJ Transit is the backbone of our economy. Millions of New Jerseyans rely on it to get to their jobs, to school, to run errands, and much more. This fare hike, however, is not the solution. We need to be incentivizing more people to take transit in order to make the state safer and to meet our statutory goals for emissions reductions.

It is no secret that NJ Transit is still suffering under budget cuts made years ago. But imposing a double-digit fare hike at the last minute is a band aid solution to a structural problem. It’s the equivalent of sticking our finger in the dam – it may stem the leak for now, but soon we’re going to have to fix the dam itself. That means lawmakers finding the political will to finally identify a sufficient funding source for NJ Transit, ending our reign as one of the biggest transit agencies in the country without dedicated funding in statute.

My recommendations for NJ Transit:

  1. Refuse fare hikes AND service cuts until the state agrees to increase the state subsidy. NJ Transit is a public service that should not have to subsist on its own customer-generated revenue. To close a fiscal gap on the backs of riders just weeks after lawmakers gave the wealthiest corporations in the country a major tax cut is the height of inequity. Increasing the subsidy to cover this year’s gap will still not even come close to how much the state invested in FY 2020 and 2021.
  2. Offer a virtual option for the fare hike public hearing. This would send a message to people who are not able to attend in-person meetings that their feedback is just as valuable as those who are able to attend.
  3. Reverse the proposals to get rid of FlexPass and to impose a 30-day expiration on one-way tickets. NJ Transit has not shown sufficient evidence that this proposal will make a substantial difference in its budget, but this will create huge financial challenges for everyday working class New Jerseyans.
  4. Commit to holding annual hearings on any future increase in perpetuity. Whether or not it is legal should not be the question–it is simply the right thing to do to ensure the people most affected by this proposal have their voices heard.

Finally, we call on legislators and Gov Murphy to reinstate the Corporate Business Tax (CBT) surcharge to create a dedicated funding source for NJ Transit. This is a modest tax on only the top 2% of corporations that operate in New Jersey, like Amazon and Walmart. New York MTA was able to avoid drastic service cuts and fare hikes by raising taxes on big businesses, so there is no reason we cannot do the same.

We keep hearing Governor Murphy say that New Jersey is more affordable than ever. We ask, affordable for who? Thank you.

Family Leave Expansion Is Good for Business, Improving Retention and Reducing Labor Costs

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning, Chair and thank you to the committee for allowing me to testify today. Despite lobbyist claims to the contrary, family leave expansion is good for business, improving retention and reducing labor costs.

1) When family leave and job protection expand, businesses show no negative effects and report slightly positive impact on employer ability to deal with employee absences. Two large studies on employers in states with paid leave show that the vast majority of businesses show no negative impact on their business operations. Most employers report positive or “no effect” on business outcomes. Smaller businesses were actually less likely to report negative effects.

New Jersey-specific research from the initial implementation of paid leave showed similar results, showing minimal impact on profitability, productivity, or turnover after paid leave

2) Most businesses support, rather than oppose, expansions in family leave protection. Despite business interest group opposition to paid leave expansion, surveys of actual businesses routinely show majority support for increasing paid family leave. In one poll from 2017, surveyed small business owners (who were disproportionately white, male, and Republican) showed 71% support for expanding job protection to smaller businesses.

3) Family leave use helps, rather than hurts, small businesses. Research from other states shows that small firms experience a reduction in labor costs when workers use paid leave.

As prior testimony and legislator statements made clear, turnover at small firms can be much more damaging than at large firms where employees are more easily replaced. But this actually militates in favor of family leave job protection at small firms, because encouraging paid leave lowers turnover and increases retention of employees. When leave was implemented, wage costs did not go up, while turnover rates went down, with no effect on firm closure.

The doomsday scenarios painted by the business lobby have not come to pass in previous family leave and job protection expansion, nor in states without New Jersey’s onerous job protection restrictions.

Arbitrary Time Limits on Emergency Assistance Prevent New Jerseyans From Receiving Supports They Need

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed extension of Emergency Assistance eligibility. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly supports the eligibility extension proposed in S3960, which continues an exemption from the 12-month lifetime limit of Emergency Assistance — which, notably, is only ⅕ of the lifetime limit for other Work First New Jersey assistance — for residents who are disproportionately harmed by economic and health crises. This includes WFNJ participants and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who have disabilities, who are full-time caretakers of dependents with disabilities, who are over 60 years old, who chronically face barriers to employment.

When the original bill passed in 2018, OLS estimated that thousands of families each year would benefit from the relief that this exemption provides. This means that, without this exemption, thousands of New Jerseyans who are most in need and living in the most devastating conditions would face homelessness; only arbitrarily set time limits would prevent them from receiving help, despite regular reviews of their need for the assistance.

The 2018 law was estimated to cost $5 million per year to help these families remain in their homes as they navigate crises. As this exemption from arbitrary cutoffs is limited to particular groups and the average grant amount in Emergency Assistance overall (across all participants, not just those with this exemption) only makes up approximately one month’s worth of rent at a time, the cost remains a relatively small investment for the state — but one with important, life-changing results.

The state should never let itself slip backward in its support for families, and the law’s sunsetting demands urgent action. We have not met the goals laid out when this exemption was first introduced — we continue to see an affordable housing crisis and devastating homelessness — and therefore, it does not make sense to let this exemption sunset and punish the participants who rely on this assistance. We should not force people with disabilities, people with dependents who have disabilities, the elderly, and other families faced with crisis out of their homes and onto the street.

While the Work First New Jersey programs need significant reform to avoid these urgent legislative demands in the future, this bridge remains critical for maintaining progress for families until those larger changes are made.

We hope that the committee will advance the extension of these crucial services today. Thank you for your time.

Fines and Fees Disproportionately Harm Low-Income Families

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good afternoon, Chairman Sarlo, Vice Chair Cunningham, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong opposition to S3954. While I fully acknowledge the importance of addressing underage drinking and its potential consequences, the provisions outlined in this bill will have unintended and detrimental effects on young individuals and their families.

The proposed increase in penalties, particularly the imposition of a $100 or $50 fine for underage possession or consumption of alcohol, is overly punitive and not grounded in evidence. In fact, fines have been shown to not be effective deterrents, especially for teens. On top of that, rather than addressing the root causes of underage drinking, such as social, familial, or economic factors, the bill seems to focus solely on punitive measures which will not lead to the desired outcome of reducing alcohol-related issues among young people. In fact, this punitive approach could perpetuate a cycle of financial strain for families already facing economic challenges, potentially exacerbating the very issues the bill seeks to address.

Moreover, because these fines disproportionately fall on low-income families who are the least likely to be able to afford to pay, they often cost much more in administrative costs than they produce in revenue, increasing the burden on our already burdened court system.

The proposed fine also raises questions about fairness and equity, as it fails to account for the diverse socio-economic backgrounds of young individuals who may engage in underage drinking. There is no racial impact statement for this bill, but if there were, it would likely show you that Black and brown communities are the most likely to receive these fines. Without a nuanced understanding of the underlying factors contributing to this behavior, imposing a flat fine is a misguided attempt at addressing a complex societal issue – one that could leave poor families spiraling while others barely feel the effect.

I live in a small, relatively wealthy town. Since I moved there years ago, long before the decriminalization of cannabis, if youth were engaging in underage drinking or substance use or otherwise disruptive behavior, police never arrested them. They called their parents. They took them home without handcuffs on. The law this bill is seeking to undermine just affords the privilege that wealthy families already enjoy to everyone.

I implore you to reconsider the punitive nature of the proposed fine and to instead focus on evidence-based approaches to tackling underage drinking. Comprehensive educational programs, community outreach, and support services have been proven to be more effective in addressing the root causes of this issue.

Thank you for your attention to this crucial matter.

Civilian Complaint Review Boards Foster Transparency, Fairness, and Safety in Policing Practices

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Sumter, Vice Chair Verrelli, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong support for A1515, which allows municipalities to establish Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs). We believe that the establishment of these boards is crucial for fostering transparency, fairness, and safety in policing practices, ultimately promoting positive relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

And while I appreciate the positive strides this bill takes in enhancing police accountability and am thrilled to see the inclusion of subpoena power and that disciplinary recommendations carry weight, I would like to urge you to consider the following three points:

Statewide Application: A1515 should be enacted as a statewide bill to ensure that all communities across the state benefit from the establishment of CCRBs.

Concurrent Investigatory Power: The 120 day delay included in the bill undermines the goals of this legislation, namely trust, transparency, and accountability. Concurrent investigatory power is necessary to empower CCRBs to initiate and conduct investigations simultaneously with internal affairs units, preventing delays and ensuring a prompt and impartial inquiry into alleged misconduct. Moreover, members of the public are less likely to report complaints to the board if they do not trust that the board has the power to fully investigate their complaint.

And finally, CCRBs should be reflective of the communities they serve. A community-driven approach ensures diverse perspectives, enhances trust, and promotes transparency. The inclusion of community members on CCRBs is fundamental to building bridges between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

I also just want to address the concerns around police recruitment. End of year state trooper counts are expected to be higher than they have been in almost a decade, and New Jersey has almost double the national average of police officers to population. The national average is about two police officers for every thousand people, and in New Jersey we have roughly four police officers for every thousand people.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to support A1515 and to consider these recommendations. By enacting this legislation with the aforementioned provisions, we can build a more accountable, transparent, and community-oriented law enforcement system in our state. And most importantly, a safer one.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs) Foster Transparency, Fairness, and Safety in Policing Practices

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Sumter, Vice Chair Verrelli, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong support for A1515, which allows municipalities to establish Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs). We believe that the establishment of these boards is crucial for fostering transparency, fairness, and safety in policing practices, ultimately promoting positive relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

And while I appreciate the positive strides this bill takes in enhancing police accountability and am thrilled to see the inclusion of subpoena power and that disciplinary recommendations carry weight, I would like to urge you to consider the following three points:

Statewide Application: A1515 should be enacted as a statewide bill to ensure that all communities across the state benefit from the establishment of CCRBs.

Concurrent Investigatory Power: The 120 day delay included in the bill undermines the goals of this legislation, namely trust, transparency, and accountability. Concurrent investigatory power is necessary to empower CCRBs to initiate and conduct investigations simultaneously with internal affairs units, preventing delays and ensuring a prompt and impartial inquiry into alleged misconduct. Moreover, members of the public are less likely to report complaints to the board if they do not trust that the board has the power to fully investigate their complaint.

And finally, CCRBs should be reflective of the communities they serve. A community-driven approach ensures diverse perspectives, enhances trust, and promotes transparency. The inclusion of community members on CCRBs is fundamental to building bridges between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

I also just want to address the concerns around police recruitment. End of year state trooper counts are expected to be higher than they have been in almost a decade, and New Jersey has almost double the national average of police officers to population. The national average is about two police officers for every thousand people, and in New Jersey we have roughly four police officers for every thousand people.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to support A1515 and to consider these recommendations. By enacting this legislation with the aforementioned provisions, we can build a more accountable, transparent, and community-oriented law enforcement system in our state. And most importantly, a safer one.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»