Another Episode of Jersey
And here you were feeling empty because MTV has taken “Jersey Shore” off the air . . .
Last night, the New Jersey City Council agreed unanimously to pass a revised pay-to-play ordinance restricting vendor contributions to Board of Education candidates. No real news there. The story, as they say, is in the story that got them there.
The ordinance only passed when Ward F Councilwoman Michele “Snookie” Massey rescinded her support of a competing proposal offered by Ward E Councilman Steve “The Situation” Fulop just two hours after casting the deciding vote in favor of The Situation’s proposed ordinance. According to accounts of the meeting, The Situation was not pleased and publicly accused Snookie of being a “rubber stamp” for the administration of Mayor Jerramiah “Pauly D” Healy, the Situation’s political rival.
“Do not insult me”, Snookie responded. “You are so rude.”
As is always the case, the hostilities were due to a misunderstanding caused when Snookie showed up late for the council meeting, just as The Situation’s proposal was being voted on and cast her ballot the wrong way.
Of course, the competing pay-to-play ordinances had gotten the Jersey City gang riled up only two weeks before when their discussion caused The Situation to get into a heated shouting match with Corporation Counsel Bill “Vinny” Matsikoudis.
It seems Vinny publicly accused The Situation of protecting his chief contributor who benefitted from the Board of Education. The Situation objected, noting that the contributor in question had contributed $1,000 to Pauly D’s campaign and accused Vinny of being “soft” on the city’s pay-to-play ordinance when it was originally proposed in 2008. Those were apparently fighting words.
“That’s a lie,” Vinny retorted, causing Ward D Councilman Bill “Ronnie” Gaughan to chide the boys to show “a little respect for the city council here,” or otherwise “take your petty nonsense outside.”
The cause of the friction among the Jersey City gang? It appears that The Situation’s proposed revision to the pay-to-play ordinance extended beyond Pauly D’s proposal to additionally prohibit vendor contributions to state Senate and Assembly candidates. Snookie and Vinny expressed strong concerns that Pauly D’s proposal would have been neither constitutional nor enforceable.
In this regard, Snookie and Vinny’s constitutional analysis appears sound.