Wilson offers Corzine a deal

Trenton, NJ -- New Jersey Republican State Committee Chairman Tom Wilson sent the following letter to Governor Corzine this morning:

June 4, 2008

Dear Governor Corzine:

I write in the spirit of compromise. You and your counsel, including Attorney General Milgram, have made it clear that you desire to appeal Judge Innes' thorough and well reasoned ruling. You have also made it abundantly clear that you claim your decision to do so is premised not upon a desire to secret away communications between you, your staff and Ms. Katz, but rather upon the basis that Judge Innes' ruling has somehow eroded or narrowed the executive privilege.

The executive privilege has always been qualified or limited and in this matter, Judge Innes’ ruling was based on upon a very unique set of facts – one that is highly unlikely, at best, to ever present themselves again in the future. In fact, he makes a point to discuss the “unique” relationship you have with Ms. Katz and the indisputable fact that “the critical position occupied by Ms. Katz in the union hierarchy generally placed her in an adversarial position to the Governor and the executive branch, most especially regarding public employee issues.” What is the likelihood that any future Governor will face this “unique” set of circumstances and choose the same path that you did?

While I disagree with you, your counsel, Mr. McBride, and Attorney General Milgram that the privilege is so broad as to encompass all communications with the executive branch, I believe I have a solution to alleviate your concerns while honoring the transparency you have advocated and that is best summed up in Judge Innes’ words: “The public has a right to know whether the relationship between the Governor and Ms. Katz had any improper influence or effect on the Governor’s paramount obligation to serve the interest of the citizens of New Jersey first.”

At present, Judge Innes' ruling is an unpublished decision of the Superior Court, Law Division. That is to say, it has no precedential effect with respect to future disputes over the executive privilege. As discussed above, it is also narrowly tailored to the specific and “unique” facts of this case. Thus, the existence of the present ruling by Judge Innes will have little or no effect on how you or future governors conduct their business.

However, should you appeal and lose, that decision would indeed bind future courts and future governors. In the end, you would be responsible for the deterioration of executive privilege. This can be avoided.

I offer the following compromise in an effort to address your concerns that the executive privilege not be eroded while allowing the public to decide for themselves if your conduct was appropriate.

First, you agree to turn over to me the documents which are in the possession of the court and were ordered to be produced. I am not asking for the disclosure of those documents which the court specifically provided did not have to be turned over.

Second, you voluntarily agree to pay my attorneys' fees which I am entitled to as a prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

In exchange for your agreement on these two items, I will voluntarily dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice. This will include the request for an order to show cause, the request for attorneys' fees and the request for relief which seeks to hold William Brown liable under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 for intentionally violating the Open Public Records Act. Additionally, I will join you in a petition to Judge Innes asking that he not submit the decision for publication.

Given the commitment you have espoused to “transparency” and “accountability” I hope you will accept my offer in the spirit of achieving our shared goals. Moreover, I hope you will consider the added expense to the taxpayers of pursuing a course that will result in multiple appeals likely to consume hundreds of hours of senior level staff time in the Attorney General’s office. Attorney General Milgram has indicated that she might well argue the appeals herself. This time that no doubt could be better spent on fighting corruption or prosecuting criminal offenses. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Tom Wilson