Governor Chris Christie • Lt.Governor Kim Guadagno  
The Official Web Site For The State of New Jersey - Department of Treasury
Global Navigation
FAQs Departments/ Agencies Services A to Z NJ Home Page
Disclaimer
Division of Purchase and Property

NJ START Vendor Enrollment Vendor Quick Reference Guides



Hurricane Sandy Contracts

QUICK LINKS
Doing Business
Bidding Opportunities
Contracts/Awards
Electronic Services
Vendor Forms

   eRFP/eBid LOGIN
Login ID 
Password 


For information on how to
enroll click here.

Your Money

NJ Goverment
Transparency
Federally-Based Contracts

Government Online Schedule

  


 

 


State Contractor Political Contributions Compliance

Public Law 2005, Chapter 51

(Formerly Executive Order 134)


In order to search this page for key words, please use your browser's search function. If you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer, click on the "Edit" button on the toolbar, then click on "Find (on This Page)" or use your keyboard to press "Control" and "F" at the same time. Enter the word you would like to search for in the box, and click on "Find Next."

Chapter 51 Q & A

Question #1.

Is a 9 percent owner outside the scope of the Order?

 
Answer: Yes. "The definition of a business entity includes: (i) all principals who own or control more than 10 percent of the profits or assets of a business entity or 10 percent of the stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation for profit, as appropriate;"

Question #2.

Do employee contributions disqualify the employer, vendor or contractor from receiving a state contract award?

 
Answer: No. Employee contributions do not disqualify the employer, so long as the employee is not also a 10% owner as described above.

Question #3.
Does the Order apply to grants given by covered agencies?

 
Answer: No.

Question #4.
Does the order apply only to procurement of services?

 
Answer: No The Order applies to the purchase of services, materials, supplies and equipment, and the acquisition, sale or lease of land or buildings.

Question #5.
In what format will departments be notified the EO 134 review unit has received the disclosure certifications forms?

 
Answer: Agencies will be notified by e-mail.

Question # 6.

In what format will the departments be notified once the Procurement Bureau completes the review?

 
Answer: Agencies will be notified by e-mail that the EO 134 Review Unit has completed or additional information is required.

Question #7.

I am confused as to which form or forms I need to submit. I am bidding on RFP# 05-X- 37164.

 
Answer: Refer to Website, Current Bid Opportunities, Request for Proposal – Addendum 1, indicates forms required.

Question # 8.
Does the $17,500 threshold apply per individual transaction or is it cumulative Statewide or by department or by division within a department?

 
Answer: The threshold is applicable per transaction, by Division within a Department. However, if the Agency becomes aware of the vendor receiving more than $17,500 in contracts during the same fiscal year, Executive Order 134 compliance forms should be obtained from the vendor.

Question # 9.
We awarded a contract in August, pursuant to an RFP issued in April, but we have not yet signed the contract itself. My questions are: 1) does Executive Order 134 apply and 2) if it does, is there a specific form of certification our vendor must sign, or will a standard certification do?

 
Answer: In response to your questions, the answer is Yes. The Executive Order applies because the contract was not executed prior to October 15, 2004. Have the vendor complete the certification and disclosure forms which are available on this website, under “Executive Order 134 Disclosure Forms and Instructions.” The most appropriate certification and disclosure form to use would be Form DPP 134 – LBDPA.

Question # 10.
In cases where the public exigency requires the immediate purchase of goods or services what will the EO 134 Review Unit require in terms of justification and/or supporting documentation?

 
Answer: The Executive Order provides an express exemption for public exigency procurements. Accordingly, no disclosure forms are required to be submitted to the Executive Order 134 Review Unit. However, agencies should follow the applicable agency guidelines for documenting public exigency procurements.

Question #11.
Withrespect to Executive Order 134, if an individual makes a contribution to a PAC and the PAC makes contributions, how does this affect the person’s ability to enter into contracts with Public Agencies? Who receives credit for the contribution?

 
Answer: A “PAC” is not a legal term, but when people use it, they generally are referring to what is defined as a “continuing political committee” under New Jersey law. Assuming by “PAC” you are referring to a continuing political committee and not to a candidate committee or a political party committee, an individual’s contribution to a PAC does not affect the individual’s ability to contract with State agencies, unless (1) the individual directly or indirectly controls the PAC and the PAC itself makes a disqualifying contribution, or (2) the Treasurer determines, under Section 5 of Executive Order 134, that the individual’s contribution to the PAC would constitute a breach of contract under Section 8 of the Order or would pose a conflict of interest.

Question #12.
Do paragraphs 6 & 7 of the Executive Order apply to DPA purchases of $17,500 and less?

 
Answer: No.

Question # 13.
As a state university our public bidding threshold is $19,500 and not $17,500. Are we still required to use the $17,500 limit?

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 14.
Is there a contact person that I could speak to directly about compliance with Executive Order 134? We have a few questions that I need to discuss with someone, if possible.

 
Answer: No. Agencies and vendors are requested to submit all questions via E-mail via the Division of Purchase and Property Website Executive Order 134 Summary Page http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/
purchase /eo134questions.shtml.
This format eliminates responding to duplicate questions, provides the opportunity to share all questions and answers with the vendor community and expedites response.

Question # 15.
Please provide the contact information used to forward the EO 134 disclosure certification forms. Department, Division, Unit, address, phone, email.

 
Agencies should refer to the contact information set forth in the General Instructions which accompany the Executive Order 134 compliance forms on this website at http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/purchase/forms.shtml#eo134.

Question # 16.
What documentation is required to be submitted to the EO134 Review Unit? Only the certification forms or should the vendor quote be included also?

 
Agencies should submit the Executive Order 134 compliance forms, together with the vendor’s Ownership Disclosure Form (or Shareholder Disclosure Form) and the Executive Summary of Procurement form, which are available on this website at http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/ purchase/forms.shtml#eo134. Exception: For Waiver of Advertising procurements, the Executive Summary form is not required. Also, see the General Instructions for a more detailed explanation of which forms to use for specific procurements.

Question # 17.
I am inquiring on Executive Order 134 for construction contracts that our agency issues. My question is to where the vendor's certification forms should be sent.

 
Answer: Please refer to the Answer to Question 15 above.

Question # 18.
Can Agencies submit disclosure certification forms as a scanned attachment (.pdf) via email?

 
Answer: See Question 120 for response.


Question # 19.
Does this order affect sub-contractors of a vendor that we would like to contract with?

 
Answer: No. The prime contractor is responsible to be in compliance with this Executive Order.

Question # 20.
I understand that a consultant will have to fill out the EO134 Certification form with their Technical Proposal submission for [an agency] project; and when a selection is made for the project, the selected firm must fill out the Disclosure form. However, we have many firms who are part way through the process, they have been selected (before Oct. 15th, therefore no Certification form was submitted), and the agreement is not yet executed. Do they need to fill out the combined Certification/Disclosure form, or just the Disclosure form?

 
Answer: Since the evaluation process has already been completed, the combined certification and disclosure form (DPP 134 LBDPA) is appropriate.

Question # 21.
We understand that the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) has issued an 8-page legal opinion addressed to Assemblyman Roberts, which states that EO 134 is unconstitutional because it contravenes, instead of complements, enacted legislation.

Based on this information where does the implementation of Executive Order 134 stand?

 
Answer: We are proceeding with the implementation as required under the Executive Order

Question # 22.
Are contracts to procure goods and services for the Abbott school districts within the scope of the Executive Order?

 
Answer: Yes. Procurements by the Department of the Treasury or other State agencies on behalf of the Abbott school districts are within the scope of the Executive Order. Purchases made directly by a school district, whether an Abbott district or not, are not covered by the Executive Order.

Question # 23.
We have some transactions (this one happens to be by Waiver of Advertising process) on which more than one vendor will be awarded contract work. Are vendors who are to be paid less than $17,500 under this waiver required to submit EO 134 compliance forms?

 
Answer: No. However, if the amount paid to such vendors exceeds $17,500, see the response to
Question #8, above

Question # 24.
Our firm is planning on responding to an advertised bid solicitation, which now includes compliance requirements for EO 134. We made a contribution to the NJ Democratic party in April of 2004, before Oct 15, 2004 (the effective date) and prior to the original publication of the RFP. However, we're unclear as to whether we are out of compliance with the Executive Order because the donation was made within 18 months of the current governor's term and within 18 months of the release of the solicitation. Is EO 134 a retroactive restriction?

 
Answer: No. Executive Order 134 does not apply to contributions made before October 15, 2004.

Question # 25.
If a vendor is approved for a formal solicitation award, will that carry over to a DPA purchase to that vendor or do we have to perform the same operation over again for the DPA?

 
Answer: The certification and disclosure forms must be completed for each separate transaction exceeding $17,500.

Question # 26.
In the Summary of the Executive Order on your Website it says that only contributions after October 15, 2004 need to be disclosed if they exceed $400, or $300 as of January 1, 2005. However, in the Executive Order Certification and Disclosure form on your website, certifications appear to be required for periods prior to October 15, 2004, which do not appear to be covered under the Executive Order. Please advise what disclosure is required.

 
Answer: The effective date is October 15, 2004. Contributions made before that date do not need to be disclosed, and do not impact the certification.

Question # 27.
This executive order took effect on October 15, 2004. However, the language refers to going back 18 months from the end of the governor's term. Also it refers to going back 18 months preceding a solicitation. From what date forward are we to certify that no contributions have been made and/or disclose contributions?

 
Answer: Please see the answer to Question #26 noted above.

Question # 28.
Do we have to provide compliance documents repeatedly for vendors once we establish approval by the treasurer or will we have to do this every time we award, especially for a DPA purchase? Many of our DPA purchases are to the same vendors again and again.

 
Answer: Certifications and disclosures are required for each transaction over $17,500.

Question # 29.
Must separate Certification and Disclosure forms for the Corporation, each 10% or greater owner, their spouses and children (living at home) be submitted? In our case, this would require completion of 15 copies of each form. What is to be done if children are not of legal age?

 
Answer: Where the vendor/bidder is a corporation, a separate certification and disclosure are required from the vendor itself, and from each greater than 10% owner and each controlled subsidiary or Section 527 Political Organization. A vendor's spouse and children of legal age, are only required to submit a separate certification or disclosure where the vendor is a natural person, such as a sole proprietorship.

Question # 30.
What guidelines, such as a Circular Letter or other directives, are available which outline the requirements for Executive Order 134 compliance?

 
Answer: In order to implement EO 134 on a timely basis we have utilized the division website as our primary means of communicating information regarding this Executive Order. Displayed information includes:
  • Executive Order 134
  • Summary of EO 134
  • Vendor Impact
  • Q and A
  • Disclosure Forms with Instructions
  • Cross Referenced Links:
Question # 31.
Will the EO 134 Review Unit accept an Ownership Disclosure Statement that was submitted by the vendor at the time of prequalification approval? We do not require vendors to submit Ownership Disclosure at time of bid proposal submission.

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 32.
My company is owned by another company. I understand that my company, and the company that owns my company, both completed the EO 134 Certifications and Disclosure Forms. The owner company has 3 shareholders. Are these individuals required to complete any of the above appendices?

 
Answer: You are correct that Certifications and Disclosures are required from the company that owns your company. This is because the owner company is a "principal" of your company and thus falls within the definition of a "business entity." However, the shareholders of the owner company are not "principals" of your company and, therefore, are not required to submit compliance documentation.

Question # 33.
I am reviewing a contract between the Board of Public Utilities and a consulting company. The contractor will not be paid by BPU, but by the various utility companies that are involved in the project (for development of electronic data interchange processes). Would this be considered a "state contract" requiring compliance with EO 134?

 
Answer: This contract would be considered a State contract, if the contracting party is BPU. Please note that EO 134 does not apply if the contract was entered into before October 15, 2004. However, since the Executive Order may apply to extensions or amendments to such a contract, please submit any extensions or amendments to the Executive Order 134 Review Unit.

Question # 34.
Are EO 134 compliance forms required in the case of an assignment of an existing agreement, where the original vendor has been acquired by a third party, and the assignee is the new corporate form of the original vendor? The term of the original agreement is not being extended, and the terms and conditions are unchanged, except for the assignment.

 
Answer: No.

Question # 35.
We are preparing to enter into a contract with a municipality. Is a municipality required to fill out and certify EO 134 forms prior to entering into a contract with the State? How about other state entities that serve as vendors, such as colleges and universities?

 
Answer: Municipalities and state entities are not required to comply with the Executive Order, because they do not fall within the definition of a "Business Entity."

Question # 36.
Does the Executive Order apply to contracts with the Administrative Office of the Courts?

 
Answer: No.

Question # 37.
Are we required to obtain EO 134 Certification and Disclosure documents from an institutional investor who owns more than ten percent (10%) of a vendor? The vendor in question is publicly traded on a national market. The investor owns 12.9% of the vendor's stock, and the vendor has told us that they can't get in touch with anyone at the investor company who can supply the compliance documents.

 
Answer: Yes. The Executive Order does not distinguish between the requirements for institutional investors and the requirements for individual investors.

Question # 38.
Previously, you indicated (Response to Question No. 3 on the Division of Purchase and Property website) that EO 134 does not apply to grants given by covered agencies. Does the same rule apply where the grant is to a for-profit entity?

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 39.
Are extensions of contracts in effect prior to October 15, 2004 subject to the terms of EO 134?

 
Answer: If the extension is provided for within the terms of the agreement, then the parties are merely exercising existing contract rights. Accordingly, the extension would not be subject to the provisions of EO 134. If, on the other hand, the extension was not expressly provided for in the contract terms, the extension would, in effect, be a new award and EO 134 would apply.

Question # 40.
Are change orders in contracts in effect prior to October 15, 2004 subject to the terms of EO 134?

 
Answer: Change orders are treated as exercises of existing contractual rights, and are generally not subject to the requirements of EO 134.

Question # 41.
Is an amendment to a contract that was in effect prior to October 15, 2004 subject to the terms of EO 134?

 
Answer: Generally speaking, amendments to contracts in effect as of October 15, 2004 are not subject to the requirements of EO 134

Question # 42.
Is an amendment to a contract that was entered into after October 15, 2004, but which was below the $17,500 EO 134 threshold subject to the terms of EO 134 if the amendment brings the value of the agreement over $17,500?

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 43.
Please define "any entity designated and organized as a "political organization" under 26 U.S.C.A. 527, that is also defined as "continuing political committee" under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-3(n) and N.J.A.C. 19:25-1.7." Is there a listing that can be provided for all "entities" that are organized under these criteria? If not, how are we to determine who they are as required by Disclosure forms?


 
Answer: The simplest way to obtain information about the IRS and NJ Election Law registration status of a political organization to which contributions have been made is to inquire of the organization itself. In addition, information regarding political organizations that are tax exempt under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code is available at the Internal Revenue Service web site. Recently, we were able to access a search page for such information at the following link:http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/
basicSearch.jsp?ck
The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (“ELEC”) maintains information regarding organizations which have registered as “continuing political committees.” The ELEC website provides a search capability as well. Their website is located at: http://www.elec.state.nj.us/


Question # 44.
We request clarification of the Model RFP Language with respect to Certifications. The language states that a separate Certification as to prohibited contributions is required for each person or organization within the definition of "Business Entity." In our case, the Bidder is an indirect subsidiary of a publicly-held company ("Parent") listed on the NYSE. Parent has over 300 subsidiaries in the U.S. and many foreign countries. Parent has a New Jersey PAC, i.e. continuing political committee under New Jersey law. The definition of "Business Entity" would clearly include Bidder and its intermediate and ultimate parent corporations.

The third element of the definition includes any subsidiaries directly or indirectly controlled by the Business Entity, i.e. this seemingly includes all 300+ subsidiaries of Parent, since Parent is a "Business Entity." It is literally impracticable for Bidder to obtain Certifications from each one, and impossible to do so before the deadline for responding to a current RFP that Bidder intends to submit a bid proposal for. It seems unlikely that the intent of EO 134 was to require hundreds of Certifications whenever a Bidder is part of a large public company.

Would it be acceptable for Bidder to include with its bid proposal Certifications by (1) itself and (2) Parent? Or (1) itself, (2) its intermediate parent and (3) Parent? (In either case, Parent's PAC would also certify, since it also appears to be a Business Entity under the definition).

   
Answer: The Executive Order is being interpreted to require Certifications and Disclosures from the vendor (the "Bidder" in your question), and any subsidiaries and continuing political committees controlled directly or indirectly by the vendor, as well as any entity which owns or controls more than ten percent (10%) of the vendor. We only require submission of compliance documentation "one generation up" for ownership. In your example, therefore, only the intermediate parent company would be required to submit Certifications and Disclosures. However, in the case of a continuing political committee, the exercise of control would be assumed, so the "Parent's PAC" should also submit these documents.

Question # 45.
Does the agreement signed between a New Jersey landlord and the NJ Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to receive federal Section 8 rental assistance funding constitute a "contract" as defined in Executive Order 134?

 
Answer: No. The Section 8 program is, essentially, a grant program, and therefore, Executive Order 134 does not apply.

Question # 46.
With regard to property/real estate matters, does EO 134 apply to the date of the real estate closing or when the real estate contract was executed by all parties?

 
Answer: The applicable date would be the date of contract execution.

Question # 47.
Under New Jersey law partnerships cannot make political contributions to New Jersey candidates and political committees. See N.J.A.C. 19:25-11.10. However, partners can contribute and contributions can be made on partnership checks provided the contribution is allocated to a partner(s), i.e., comes from the partner's share of partnership funds, and such contribution is authorized in writing by the partner, and the written authorization accompanies the contribution when sent to a candidate or political committee. N.J.A.C. 19:25-11.10. This being the case, is it correct to assume that the only reportable contributions under E. O. 134 are those made by partners with more than a 10% interest in the partnership. [Note: Code references provided by question contributor.]

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 48.
I have been asked to act as placement agent for an Agency's upcoming Bond transaction. The placement is for the investment of the bond proceeds into guaranteed investment agreements. We have been asked to get each potential provider of an investment agreement to sign the EO 134 Certification and Disclosure forms.The contract(s) will be signed with entities. These entities have or will shortly be submitting their forms under their corporate names.These entities, and others, have guarantors. I don't believe we need to have the guarantors also sign one (they will never be the counterparty just the backup credit in the event of a failure to perform by the signatory) but I just wanted to confirm so that we don't have a problem at closing.


 
Answer: Yes. Since the guarantor does not have a contract with the State of New Jersey they do not need to submit Certification and Disclosure forms.

Question # 49.
Could you please provide some clarification on EO 134 requirements for DOT projects. I have learned that there is an EO 18 as of yesterday [January 26, 2005] which exempts DOT federally funded projects from EO 134 scrutiny. Please advise.

 
Answer: Executive Order 18 excludes DOT projects funded in whole or in part by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) from the scope of EO 134.

Question # 50.
I understand EO 134 was changed so that it does not apply to federally funded contracts. Do you know if this change applies only to the DOT for highway projects, or if it applies to all FTA funded transit projects?

 
Answer: EO 18 modifies EO 134 only with respect to DOT contracts and only to the extent that such contracts are funded, in whole or in part, by the FHWA.

Question # 51.
New Jersey law (NJSA 19:34-45 in particular) prohibits certain corporations, including banks and insurance companies, from making contributions to political candidates or parties. Given that it would appear that these companies were forbidden under law from contributions covered under NJ EO 134, is it necessary for these companies to provide EO 134 certifications?

 
Answer: Yes, it is necessary. The referenced statute does prohibit some contributions to or in support of political candidates and parties, but may not prohibit contributions to all of the political committees within the scope of EO 134.

Question # 52.
One of our vendor's owners died, and the estate has not completed the probate process. Are we required to obtain EO 134 certification and disclosure forms from the estate?

 
Answer: No. Estates are not considered part of the vendor's "Business Entity."

Question # 53.
Our company is a State vendor. Would the owner (she owns more than 10% of the company's stock) of the company be allowed to be on the host committee for a gubernatorial fundraising event?

 
Answer: No. That would violate the prohibition in the Executive Order against soliciting contributions by Principals of vendors.

Question # 54.
What are the criteria that that Dept. of Treasury will apply in determining whether a vendor's contribution to a 527 organization and continuing political committee results in a disqualifying conflict of interest?

 
Answer: Our Conflict of Interest review involves an analysis of the committee to which the contribution was made, and a determination as to whether the contribution appears to have been an attempt to circumvent the prohibitions of the Executive Order. Further, we review information regarding the transaction and the committee to which the contribution was made to determine whether there is a nexus between the contribution and the contract award that would result in a conflict of interest.

Question # 55.
Would our Medicaid “fee for service” providers, who bill our system for reimbursement, be subject to E.O.134? These providers have contracts with the HMOs to which the State is not a party, but which do prescribe certain parameters that must be met in the HMO contract. The fee for service providers have a simple provider agreement which certifies that they will comply with all applicable federal and state law, provide information regarding claims and keep records. There is no countersignature by the State. There is no acceptance process for service providers, all who apply and agree to the program’s terms are accepted.

 
Answer: No, these providers are not subject to E.O. 134, as there is no contract “award” that would trigger the Executive Order.

Question # 56.
Certain foreign entities – defined as “foreign nationals” – are prohibited by U.S. federal law from making political contributions in the U.S. – see 2 U.S.C. 441e. Based on this prohibition, are such vendors or foreign entities who are part of a vendor’s “Business Entity” under the Executive Order excused from compliance with E.O. 134?

 
Answer: No. The Executive Order does not differentiate among “Business Entities” based on country of residence or origin. Nor does the Executive Order provide an exemption based upon compliance with other State or federal laws.

Question # 57.
Our company is a state vendor with a contract with a State agency. Our President is First Vice Chair of a County political organization. As a state vendor, would our President be allowed to sign checks from the County political organization?

 
Answer: The signing of political organization checks is not of any significance under EO 134. However, as an executive with the county political organization, your company’s president should be aware of the restrictions on soliciting contributions set forth in EO 134. Those restrictions apply to state vendors and their Principals (more than 10% owners). Your company’s president should also be aware of the possibility that services provided to the county political organization may, if not voluntary services, be considered reportable “in-kind contributions” to the organization pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:44A-3f, which would have a potential EO 134 impact.

Question # 58.
If a contract vendor responds that they have not contributed, does the using agency have to submit the paperwork to the Executive Order Review Unit, or may they continue to process the contract without submission?

 
Answer: The paperwork must be submitted to the Review Unit. We will confirm whether all of the required entities have submitted the required certifications and disclosures, and will notify the using agency whether the vendor documentation complies with the requirements of the Executive Order.

Question # 59.
For a professional corporation, does the definition of "business entity" in paragraph 4 of the Order include only principals who own or control more than 10 percent of the stock, or does it also include principals who own or control more than 10 percent of the profits or assets of a business entity?

 
Answer: The relevant language from the EO defines the "Business entity" as: "all principals who own or control more than 10 percent of the profits or assets of a business entity or 10 percent of the stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation for profit, as appropriate…." In the case of a professional corporation that is a "corporation for profit;" therefore, the business entity definition would apply only to individuals or entities who own or control more than 10% of the stock.

Question # 60.
May a member of a professional corporation who does not own or control more than 10 percent of the stock of the professional corporation make contributions or solicit contributions subject to the Order where that member is part of the professional corporation’s management committee and/or decides the compensation to be received by other members of the professional corporation? For purposes of this question, please assume that the professional corporation has a contract with the State such that the corporation itself could not engage in these activities.

 
Answer: Neither the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Order, nor the prohibitions on contributions or solicitations, apply to an individual who does not own more than ten percent (10%) of the professional corporation.

Question # 61.
Same question as [60], but the activity at issue is a solicitation of other members of the professional corporation and/or employees of the professional corporation.

 
Answer: See the Answer to Question No. 60 above.

Question # 62.
May two members of a professional corporation, neither of whom owns more than 10% of the stock of the corporation, but who in the aggregate own more than 10% of the stock of the corporation, make or solicit contributions subject to the Order. For purposes of this question, please assume that the professional corporation has a contract with the State such that the corporation itself could not engage in these activities.

 
Answer: Ownership in the corporation is not aggregated for purposes of determining the applicability of the Order.

Question # 63.
Our Agency utilizes New Jersey State Contracts for a good portion of its procurement of goods and services.  Please clarify whether the Agency has to separately require that the vendors who have existing State Contracts comply with EO 134 before we can order ?

 
Answer:  Purchase Orders and other procurements against existing State contracts established by the Division of Purchase and Property, are not separately subject to the requirements of EO 134.  Executive Order compliance with respect to such State contracts is the responsibility of the Division, specifically the Procurement Bureau.

Question # 64.
Can a principal of a business entity give a power of attorney to another principal of the same business entity to sign as attorney-in-fact the Certification and Disclosure Form required under Executive Order 134?

 
Answer: Yes.

Question # 65.
Is there any guidance as to how often and when the Continuing Disclosure forms need to be filed ?

 
Answer: The Continuing Disclosure forms need to be filed upon the making of any political contribution that would require disclosure under EO 134. The Continuing Disclosure form is filled out AFTER the contract award.

Question # 66.
How should sole source purchases be handled with respect to the Executive Order 134 required documents?

 
Answer: Assuming that your question refers to the procedural requirements of EO 134 and how it relates to sole source purchases, the required documents under the Order would apply to your transaction. Please note that this would not include a public exigency situation.

Likewise, if you are inquiring whether or not your agency is entitled to receive an exemption from submitting EO 134 documents because of the mere fact that you have received one bid or have one qualified bidder for services, the answer is No. The EO 134 documents are required.

Question # 67.
May a bidder safely use the standard EO 134 certification and disclosure form found on the Treasury Department's website instead of the particular form included in the bid solicitation of the State agency?

 
Answer: No. The form included in the bid solicitation package from the State agency is the correct form to use unless you have approval by that Agency to use a different form.

Question # 68.
Is an individual(s) who owns 10% or more of the stock of the company with which we are contracting, but this individual(s) is not an active principal of the company, do we still require an EO 134 Certification from this individual(s)? Accordingly, if we have an ownership disclosure form which lists four individuals as equal stock ownership, if two of those individuals are "active" principals and the other two are "inactive", do we require EO 134 Certifications for the two inactive stockholders? Thus, are the two inactive stockholders considered "principals"?

 
Answer: Yes. The Executive Order does not make a distinction between active or inactive principals within the business entity. Therefore, "all principals who own or control more than 10 percent of the profits or assets of a business entity or 10 percent of the stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation for profit...", would be subject to the requirements of EO134.

Question # 69.
Is a public company (e.g. a company that is subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and required to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission) required to have its shareholders who own more than 10% of its stock submit a certification and disclosure form under Executive Order 134 when such public company enters into an agreement to provide services to a state agency? We note that shareholders of a public company are under no duty to the public company to provide such information and that as a result a public company may not be able to obtain the required certification in a timely manner.

 
Answer: Yes. See Question #32 on the EO 134 web site.

Question # 70.
If a public company is required to obtain a certification and disclosure form under Executive Order 134 from its 10% shareholders and such public company in good faith attempts to obtain such certification but a 10% shareholder does not provide the required certification, does a public exigency exist to enable the state agency to still contract with the public company despite the lack of a certification from a 10% shareholder?

 
Answer: A public exigency is determined on a case by case basis by the State Treasurer. If the Treasurer determines that a true public safety emergency requires the immediate delivery of goods or performance of services, the agency would not be precluded from contracting with a company while it is waiting for certification and disclosure forms.

Question # 71.
Our Company is currently under contract with the State of New Jersey. Is our company allowed under the provision of E0134 to contribute $500.00 to a committee to re-elect a Freeholder candidate?

 
Answer: Contributions to the election fund or committee of a county Freeholder candidate are outside of the scope of EO 134.

Question # 72.
The accompanying disclosure form to E.O. 134 Cert. (eff. Oct. 15, 2004) requires disclosure of contributions to "political organizations" and contributions to Continuing Political Committees -- does this require a disclosure to groups and political organizations not covered by E.O 134 (i.e. legislative campaign committees)?

 
Answer: The EO 134 Certification and Disclosure form defines the term "political organization" as any entity organized as a political organization under 26 U.S.C.A. Section 527 that is also defined as “continuing political committee” under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-3(n) and N.J.A.A. 19:25-1. EO 134 only requires disclosure of groups and political organizations within the scope of these definitions.

Question # 73.
EO134 requires disclosure of contributions to election fund of any candidate or current holder of public office of governor or state or county political party committee. Does this apply to a contribution to the election fund for a city/township mayoral candidate? Also, would payment for dinner tickets be considered a "contribution" to such township election fund events under EO134?

 
Answer: While payment for dinner tickets would be considered a contribution, contributions to candidates for Municipal offices are not subject to the Executive Order.

Question # 74.
An incorporated trade association intends to register in New Jersey as a continuing political committee. Its members include corporations and individuals. Can the association accept contributions to its CPC from members who have contracts with the State and/or local jurisdictions, whose contributions will be used to make contributions to New Jersey candidates and political party committees?

 
Answer: Contributions to a CPC, (Continuing Political Committee) are required to be disclosed by the contributor as part of the EO 134 compliance process. Disclosure of such contributions will trigger a conflict of interest analysis under EO 134. See question #54 posted on the 'EO 134 web site.

Question # 75.
Can a CPC soliciting and receiving contributions from a wide breadth of civically active individuals, grassroots organizations and professional corporations continue to contribute to county political party committees? Please assume the professional corporations have a contract with the State such that these corporations themselves could not contribute to a county political party committee.

 
Answer: Contributions by the CPC will be considered as part of the conflicts of interest analysis referenced in the answer to question No. 54. See question #54 on the EO 134 web site.

Question # 76.
Are Certification and Disclosure forms required for an annual dues assessment payment to a national association of which every state/territory government is a member? For example, NJ is a member of the National Association which advocates for mental health issues. Each state/territory is represented by their respective Commissioner or Division Director for Mental Health. This organization advocates for mental health issues / legislation at the national level.

 
Answer: The group you describe is, effectively, a consortium of governmental entities that would not constitute a “Business Entity” for purposes of E.O. 134. As such, the group would not be subject to the requirements of EO 134.

Question # 77.
As a State agency, are we required to obtain EO 134 certification and disclosure forms if we purchase land from an estate?

 
Answer: No. An estate is not considered to be a “Business Entity” for purposes of Executive Order 134. Please reference the response to question #52 posted on the Division of Purchase and Property’s EO 134 website pages.

Question # 78.
We are a State agency that gives grants to nonprofit organizations for the acquisition of land and development of facilities. One of the conditions of the grant is that the nonprofit give us a Deed of Conservation Restriction on the property. Does this program fall under the category of "grants given by covered agencies" (Question #3), and thus not covered by EO 134?

 
Answer: Yes. While some procurement transactions designated as “grants” are, in fact, contracts for goods or services (and therefore subject to EO 134), where the transaction does not call for the delivery of specified goods to the State, or the performance of services for the State, or to third parties designated by the State, and the State does not have a substantial role in the funded activity, EO 134 does not apply.

Question # 79.
Does EO 134 (P.L. 2005, c.51) apply to a political contribution by a vendor to a particular county political party for purposes of funding the LEGISLATIVE election campaigns of that party's candidates, and where the contribution is not related to any gubernatorial campaign?

 
Answer: The contributions to a county political party committee are disqualifying contributions under the Executive Order (P.L. 2005, c.51).

Question # 80.
Does EO 134 (P.L. 2005, c.51) apply to a vendor's contributions to a gubernatorial campaign fund if that particular candidate was NOT elected?

 
Answer: Yes. The success of the candidate does not affect the application of EO 134 (Public Law 2005, c.51); however, that success or lack of success may affect the length of the period of disqualification. Contributions to a successful candidate disqualify a vendor for the term of the governor, plus, up to an additional eighteen months, depending on the timing of the contribution. Contributions to an unsuccessful candidate disqualify a vendor for eighteen months.

Question # 81.
Is there a master cumulative list of the state departments, agencies, boards, etc. as defined in item 10 of the order that this executive order applies? If so, how do I get it? If not, why not?

 
Answer: We are not aware of any published “master list” of the type you describe. Any questions with respect to the applicability of P.L. 2005 c.51 (EO 134) to a particular procurement should be addressed to the procuring agency.

Question # 82.
If a contribution was made without awareness of the EO 134 implications and the candidate is now willing to return the contribution 6 months later, can this be done to allow for securing of State contracts?

 
Answer: No. Reimbursement of an inadvertent contribution may be obtained within 30 days after the date on which the contribution was made.

Question # 83.
The definition of "Business Entity" does not include any mention of nonprofit corporations organized under the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Act (NJSA 15A:1-1 et. seq.)and refers to commercial entities. Are certification and disclosure required for such nonprofit corporations?

 
Answer: Yes. The certification and Disclosure forms are applicable to a nonprofit organization.

Question # 84.
If I bought a ticket to a Birthday party for a Freeholder (150) and an assembly person (100) in one year is that a reportable contribution on this form if our agency contracts with the State and if that is the extent of contributions I have made. I am the executive director of the agency.

 
Answer: Contributions to County Freeholders or members of the State assembly are outside the scope of P.L. 2005, c.51 (EO 134).:

Question # 85.
If The bidder is a publicly-owned company. One of the shareholders owns/controls more than 10% of the bidder's stock. How do we determine whether this stockholder is a "principal" under the definition of "business entity" in EO 134, and thus subject to the certification requirement?

 
Answer: Any natural or legal person who owns or controls more than 10% of the stock of a company is considered a principal of that company for purposes of P.L. 2005, c.51 (EO 134).

Question # 86.
In December 14, 2004 the Department of the Treasury, Division of Purchase and Property, Review Unit issued FORM DPP 134-Instr in which they stated "The Certification.....must be submitted with the vender's bid proposal. A failure to submit this form at the time of bid submission will disqualify the bid as 'non-responsive'".

The FORM DPP has evolved into EO134 Form "rev:3/4/2005 DPP 134-C&D.

Does the non-submission of form DPP 134-C&D disqualify the bid as non-responsive?


 
Answer: No.

Question # 87.
The inquirer is a “business entity” organized as a partnership prohibited from making or soliciting political contributions under the provisions of Public Law 2005, c.51. The partnership has both Covered (10%+) and Non-Covered (less than 10%) partners. May Non-Covered partners utilize certain facilities of the partnership such as fax machines, telephones, Xerox machines, personal computers, etc., to solicit political contributions for a campaign if the value of such administrative cost is less than the amount of reportable (currently $300 or less) campaign threshold for the Covered and Non-Covered partners in the aggregate?

 
Answer: Yes. The value of such contributions does not exceed the reportable amount and is therefore permissible.

Question # 88.
May Non-Covered partners (see Question No. 87) utilize certain facilities of the partnership such as fax machines, telephones, Xerox machines, personal computers, etc., to solicit political contributions if the value of such administrative costs is greater than the amount of the reportable campaign threshold for all partners in the aggregate if the Non-Covered partners reimburse the partnership for such administrative costs in excess of the reportable campaign contribution threshold and if the Non-Covered partners report the amount of such administrative costs as an in-kind contribution to the appropriate political campaign for which the solicitation is being made, pursuant to the provisions of Attorney General Opinion No. 14 (1979) and other such opinions?

 
Answer: Yes. Consistent with the reasoning of the Attorney General Opinions, the use of certain partnership assets is not a contribution, provided that full reimbursement is made.

Question # 89.
May a prohibited business entity established as a partnership make a political contribution using a partnership check so long as the contribution is accompanied by an appropriate letter allocating the contribution to individual, Non-Covered partners (see Question No. 87) and so long as no contributions are allocated on behalf of Covered partners?

 
Answer: Yes. Consistent with ELEC regulations and procedures, use of the partnership check is not determinative, provided that the contribution check is accompanied by a clear allocation to individual, Non-Covered partners, as is required by ELEC.

Question # 90.
May Covered partners (see Question No. 87) contribute under the reportable amount?

 
Answer: Yes, individual Covered partners can each contribute less than $300, and such contributions are not attributed to the partnership.

Question # 91.
May a spouse of a Covered partner (see Question No. 87) contribute more than the reportable amount?

 
Answer: Yes. Although spouses of sole-proprietors are precluded from donating more than the reportable amount, this does not apply to spouses of Covered partners in other forms of business.

Question # 92.
May a spouse of a Covered partner (see Question No. 87) who is not employed contribute more than the reportable amount from a joint account?

 
Answer: Yes. Even though the Covered partner cannot contribute more than the reportable amount, under ELEC laws and regulations, a contribution from a joint account is presumptively made by the person who signs the check. Thus, if the check is signed by the spouse, the contribution is presumed to have been made by that person, absent evidence to the contrary.

Question # 93.
If a company has a State contract can they contribute to a county party?

 
Answer: If the State contract was entered into after the effective date of P.L. 2005, c.51, the law prohibits contributions to certain entities, including county political party committees, during the term of the contract. If the contract was entered into prior to the effective date, then Chapter 51/EO 134 does not apply with respect to that contract. However, you should be aware that even though a firm contracted prior to the effective date of Chapter 51, any contributions made after the effective date of Chapter 51 would preclude the firm from receiving future contracts.

Question #94.
Are employees employed by the company allowed to contribute to a county party?

 
Answer: Yes, so long as the employee is not a greater than 10% owner in that company. However, please note that an employer’s contributions would be disqualifying as described above. In addition, an employer is also prohibited under P.L. 2005, c.51 from making or soliciting contributions indirectly through its employees or reimbursing an employee in order to circumvent the effects of c.51/EO 134 by concealing the source of a contribution.

Question # 95.
We have some concern among our members because our Political Action Committee contributes to State Committees.  Some of our members who may have leasing contracts with the State might be impacted.  Our question is if EO 134 would apply to those members who contribute to our PAC, and in turn our PAC makes this type of contribution?

 
Answer: There are several ways in which your group's members could be impacted by Public Law 2005, Chapter 51 (EO 134):

We assume that your group is a private trade association, and that the association controls the PAC. However, if the PAC is determined to be controlled by one or more specific association members, then the PAC's contributions would be attributed to the member(s) as part of the member's “business entity” under Chapter 51.
In addition, assuming the PAC is a “Continuing Political Committee” under NJ law, contributions to the PAC by your members would be required to be disclosed in accordance with Chapter 51. The disclosure would trigger a “conflict of interest” review, in which we would take into consideration:
  Whether the contributions were given to the PAC as a means of circumventing the restrictions of Chapter 51 (EO 134), which would be a violation of Chapter 51; and
  Whether there are other factual indications that would raise “conflict of interest” concerns with respect to the contribution from the member to the PAC, and subsequent contributions from the PAC to political committees. In this regard, please see our response to question No. 54 on the Division of Purchase and Property's EO 134 website pages.

Question # 96.
Unlike the executive order, Public Law 2005, Chapter 51 includes a section on eminent domain. It specifically states that the provisions of EO 134 shall not prevent agencies "from complying with all of the requirements, conditions and obligations of the "Eminent Domain Act"...

What is the process that our agency has to follow with respect to the requirements of the order. Can we negotiate the purchase of property without the filing of a complaint under the Eminent Domain Act?

Often times we can begin to pursue the process for a taking as set forth in the act and negotiate a settlement without filing a complaint. Of course, this is the most direct and most efficient (cost-effective) way to proceed. Involving the court each time would create a great deal of difficulty.


 
Answer: The exemption in Chapter 51 of acquisitions accomplished in compliance with the Eminent Domain Act was intended to allow agencies to conduct the bona fide negotiations required by the Act. As such, the positive results of any negotiations conducted in compliance with the mandates of the Act are outside the purview of the law (Chapter 51/EO 134).

Question # 97.
If a prospective or current vendor made a $300 contribution to a state political party committee since October 15, 2004, can the vendor be brought into compliance with EO 134 by requesting and obtaining a refund?

 
Answer: Please see response to Question #118.

Question # 98.
The owner of this company held a fund raising dinner for one of the Republican candidates for Governor and personally contributed an amount over the EO limit. The event was held after the October deadline for EO134 but before announcing candidacy. If this candidate withdraws from the race or fails to secure the party nomination to run for Governor, does the EO 134 restrictions continue to be in play?

 
Answer: EO 134 is interpreted consistent with ELEC laws in that a candidate who has sought election for a primary or general election is a candidate regardless of his/her success or failure in that election. Moreover, an individual seeking election in this instance would also be considered a candidate for purposes of reporting under ELEC Laws when that candidate has received funds or other benefits (i.e. contributions from a fund raising dinner) in order to make a decision on whether to run for a primary or general election. Therefore, a candidate’s withdrawal or failure to secure a gubernatorial nomination would not change the effect of the contribution made and the restrictions of EO 134 would apply.

Question # 99.
If a vendor has a contract with an independent agency or authority of the State of New Jersey, and is paid directly by that entity, and the vendor intends to make contributions to Continuing Political Committees (CPC's), to whom must the continuing disclosure forms be addressed to be reviewed for compliance with P.L. 2005, c. 51?

 
Answer: The continuing disclosure form must be sent to the agency and that agency will forward the form to the EO 134 Review Unit for review.

Question # 100.
When processing the EO134 forms is it required to have the forms notarized?

 
Answer: No.

Question # 101.
We are the concessionaire at certain venues within the State of New Jersey. Many of our contracts with the owner/operators of such venues provide that we are to be the exclusive food and beverage provider at such venues. Since there is no bid process, and the State agency is required to use our company for its food and beverage needs should it decide to schedule an event at such venue, it would appear that the rationale behind EO 134 wouldn't be implicated (i.e., that the fair bidding process shouldn't be compromised through the use of political donations). In other words, there is no bid process, there are no alternative suppliers, and accordingly, there is no opportunity for a vendor to gain favor through contributions. Accordingly, in such an "exclusive rights" circumstance, must we as the service provider still comply with EO 134?

 
Answer: Under the circumstances described, it appears that the relevant contracts for EO 134/Chapter 51 purposes would be the agreements between your company and any public agencies or authorities that are the owners/operators of the venues, if applicable, not a State agency which may schedule events at the venues.

Question # 102.
The New Jersey Sports Authority has collective bargaining agreements with 13 different unions. Are the unions subject to the provisions of EO 134?

 
Answer: No. Collective bargaining agreements are not transactions subject to the EO 134.

Question # 103.
For purposes of determining the principals of a limited liability company (LLC-1) that holds a state contract valued over $17,500, would a corporation which owns 1% of LLC-1, but which is the managing member of LLC-1 be a principal subject to the restrictions and reporting requirements of P.L. 2005 c.51?

 
Answer: No. A limited liability company is a corporation for profit and only the principals owning more than 10% of the stock are subject to the restrictions of P.L. 2005, c.51. Therefore, in your case a corporation owning 1% of the stock would not be subject to the reporting requirements of P.L. 2005 c.51. Please reference the response to question No. 59 on the Division of Purchase and Property EO 134 website pages.

Question # 104.
I represent a limited liability partnership that has a lease agreement with a state agency with a value in excess of $17,500. The lease was signed prior to October 15, 2004, and is still in effect. Can persons that own/control 10% or more of this partnership contribute to current gubernatorial campaigns, and state or county political parties?

 
Answer: Lease agreements signed prior to October 15, 2005 are not subject to EO 134(P.L. 2005, c.51), for the duration of the lease and for the duration of any extensions provided for pursuant to the terms of the lease. Accordingly, partnership principals are not prohibited by EO 134 (P.L. 2005, c.51) from making such contributions. Please note that, extensions of the lease pursuant to mutual agreements and/or amendments which are not provided for in the original lease may be subject to EO 134/C.51. See also question No. 46 on the Division of Purchase and Property EO 134 website pages.

Question # 105.
I represent several entities which are limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships that have contracts with a value above $17,500 with the State. Persons who own and/or control 10% or more of these entities are subject to the restrictions and reporting requirements in P.L.2005 Chapter 51. Because business entity is defined to include natural persons who own or control 10% or more of the profits or assets of a business entity, and because, "if a business entity is a natural person, that person's spouse or child, residing therewith, are also included in this definition," are the spouses and at-home children of 10% owners of subject limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships subject to Chapter 51?

 
Answer: No. A limited liability company and a limited liability partnership, as a vendor, is not considered a natural person. Therefore, the spouse and children of principals of such entities (a LLC & LLP), are not subject to P.L. 2005, c.51.

Question # 106.
Does EO 134 apply to Federal Social Services Block Grant funding received through DYFS?

 
Answer: If this funding is a true grant as outlined in question No. 3 on the Division of Purchase and Property EO 134 website pages, this grant is not subject to EO 134 (P.L. 2005, c.51).

Please note this funding could be construed differently if the procurement transaction designated as a "grant" is, in fact, a contract for goods or services or if the State has a substantial role in the funded activity. In that instance, the restrictions of EO 134 would apply. See also the response to question No. 78 on the Division of Purchase and Property EO 134 website pages.

Question # 107.
Our agency receives electricity and natural gas from a BPU regulated utility company.  Billing for these services are based on tariffs established by the BPU.  Is it necessary to have these utility companies complete the EO 134 forms?

 
Answer: No. Utility companies are outside the scope of  P.L. 2005, Chapter 51(EO 134).

Question # 108.
Our firm will be merging to form a new firm with two additional principals. Since December 2004 our firm has been a state vendor, under a contract with a State agency. Our contract will end at the end of this month. My question is, if one of our firm's new partners has made a contribution to a state party committee, county party committee or candidate for Governor in the past year, would the new firm be eligible to receive a state contract?

 
Answer: In order to be awarded a State contract award after the expiration of the current contract, the new firm will have to supply Chapter 51 (EO 134) compliance documentation. As such, each owner of more than 10% of the firm (Principals) will have to provide a Certification and Disclosure form. If one or more of the Principals is unable to provide a Certification, or discloses a disqualifying contribution, your firm would not be eligible for the contract award.

Question # 109.
Under federal law, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to enter into an agreement with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to provide rebates for their drug products paid for by Medicaid. Manufacturers that do not sign an agreement with CMS are not eligible for Medicaid coverage of their product (s). Since the State Medicaid rebate agreements are required under federal law, is it correct to assume that the pharmaceutical manufacturers that execute Medicaid rebate agreements are not prohibited from making political contributions under E.O. 134 (Chapter 51)?

 
Answer: The State Medicaid rebate agreements do not constitute contract awards, and therefore (1) are not subject to Chapter 51 (EO 134), and (2) do not trigger the restrictions of Chapter 51.

Question # 110.
The State has a similar form agreement to the Medicaid rebate agreement concerning the PAAD and Senior Gold programs. Signature of the New Jersey drug rebate agreement is mandated in order for the drugs produced by a manufacturer to be eligible for State funding when dispensed to PAAD or Senior Gold beneficiaries. The provision of drugs in these two programs are not subject to the public bidding provisions. Is it correct to assume that the pharmaceutical manufacturers that enter into rebate agreements with the Department of Health and Senior Services are not prohibited from making political contributions under E.O. 134 (Chapter 51)?

 
Answer: The State rebate agreements under the referenced programs do not constitute contract awards, and therefore (1) are not subject to Chapter 51 (EO 134), and (2) do not trigger the restrictions of Chapter 51.

Question # 111.
If a manufacturer is prohibited from making certain political contributions under Chapter 51 (EO 134), does the prohibition apply to a PAC or continuing political committee formed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer?

 
Answer: A continuing political committee formed by and under the control of a manufacturer would be considered part of the business entity of the manufacturer. Accordingly, the restrictions applicable to the manufacturer would be applicable to the committee, and contributions by the committee would be attributable to and required to be reported by the manufacturer.

Question # 112.
With respect to Executive Order 134 (Chapter 51 of Public Laws of 2005), may an individual whose corporation, limited liability corporation or limited partnership has a contract with the State of New Jersey exceeding $17,500.00 make a contribution to the following committees in either an individual or corporate capacity: 1. Senate Democratic Majority; 2. Democratic Legislative Leadership Action Committee; 3. Republican Legislative Leadership Action Committee.

 
Answer: Contributions to the Senate Democratic Majority Committee, Democratic Legislative Leadership Action Committee and the Republican Legislative Leadership Action Committee are not encompassed by P.L. 2005, Chapter 51, as those committees are outside of the scope of the statute's designation of "political party committee" and are not "continuing political committees" under applicable law.

Question # 113.
State, county, and municipal agencies and authorities advertise, obtain membership, sponsor and or attend a specific trade association's events or publications. The fees paid for these advertisements, memberships, sponsorships, and attendance fees respectively, often exceed $17,500. We recognize that the Department has previously responded that Executive Order 134/Chapter 51 "applies to the purchase of services, materials, supplies and equipment, and the acquisition, sale or lease of land or buildings." Are the fees paid for advertisements, memberships, sponsorships and attendance fees of the trade association equivalent to entering into an "agreement or contract" or considered a "transaction" for the purposes of P.L. 2005, Chapter 51?

 
Answer: Fees paid to a trade association for memberships and/or sponsorships are not considered contracts to procure goods or services; in addition, fees paid to place advertising in media of general or trade circulation (as contrasted with fees for advertising and related services) would not be considered contracts to procure goods or services; neither are the foregoing considered contracts for the sale/lease of land. Therefore, these types of fees would not trigger P.L. 2005, Chapter 51 and are outside the scope of the law.

Question # 114.
If fees paid to a trade association for advertisements, memberships, and/or sponsorships are outside the scope of P.L. 2005, Chapter 51, is it correct to assume that the trade association would not be precluded from making political contributions to Gubernatorial candidates or county or State political party committees or legislative leadership committees?

 
Answer: A trade association's contributions to gubernatorial Candidates or county or State political party committees would affect its eligibility for contract awards within the scope of P.L. 2005, Chapter 51.

Question # 115.
Can you tell me if contributions to a State college or university are prohibited under Ch 51.

 
Answer: Chapter 51 applies only to contributions to a State or county political party committee, contributions to election committees of gubernatorial candidates and contributions to "continuing political committees" - which are sometimes referred to as Political Action Committees or PACs.

Contributions to State colleges or universities are outside the scope of Chapter 51.

However, contributions to the political committees within the scope of Chapter 51 will affect a vendor's eligibility for contracts with State colleges and universities.

Question # 116.
A vendor is a publicly traded company, and is owned in part by one or more financial firms, each of which owns more than 10% of the shares of the vendor. Is the vendor required to obtain Certification and Disclosure forms from the financial firms?

 
Answer: Publicly traded companies are not required to obtain Chapter 51 Certification and Disclosure forms from holders of more than 10% of their shares, where the holders of such shares are mutual funds, financial advisors, or other institutional investors that own the shares for the benefit of investors.

Financial firms that hold such shares for their own account are required to submit Certification and Disclosure forms.

Question # 117
I have read newspaper accounts that indicate giving to a state party, by a greater than 10% owner, is not covered by EO 134 (and the subsequent legislation) if the contribution is directed specifically to the federal account, is this accurate?

 
Answer: The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) has issued an Advisory Opinion stating that contributions to the federal account of a New Jersey State political party committee are outside of the jurisdiction of ELEC, so long as the funds in the "federal account" are used exclusively for federal election purposes and are not spent on State candidates or elections.

Accordingly, such a contributions would not be a "contribution reportable by the recipient under the New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act," and are therefore outside of the scope of Chapter 51 (formerly EO 134). See the ELEC Advisory Opinion at http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/AO/ao032006.pdf .

Question # 118
If a vendor has made an inadvertent contribution, it has been refunded, although beyond the 30 day limit that reverses disqualification, what is the exact time the vendor is not eligible for State contract awards?

 
Answer: Your question raises two separate issues. First, Chapter 51 states that an inadvertent contribution may be returned to the contributor, and eligibility for State contract award restored, if the refund is obtained within thirty days of the contribution. A refund obtained more than thirty days after the date of the contribution will not restore the eligibility of the vendor.Second, the period of ineligibility depends upon the timing of the contribution, and the committee to which the contribution was made.As a general rule, there is an eighteen (18) month period during which the contributor is not eligible for State contract award.Where the contribution is made to a candidate committee or election fund of a sitting Governor, or to the State or county political party committee of the party which nominated the sitting Governor, and the contribution is made during the Governor's term of office, the contributor is ineligible for State contract award for 18 months or during the remainder of the Governor's term of office, whichever is longer.Finally, where the contribution is made to a candidate committee or election fund of a sitting Governor, or to the State or county political party committee of the party which nominated the sitting Governor, and the contribution is made during the last eighteen months of the Governor's term of office, the period of ineligibility could extend through the next gubernatorial term if the sitting Governor is elected to a second term of office.


Question # 119
For State term contracts issued by the Division of Purchase and Property, does the $17,500 transaction threshold amount established by the governing statute pertain to each individual purchase made by each term contract user or to the aggregate purchases made by all term contract users combined?

 
Answer: Amplifying the State’s answer to Question #8 above, which addressed Delegated Purchasing Authority (DPA) purchases made directly by State agencies, for State term contracts awarded by DPP’s Procurement Bureau, the $17,500 transaction threshold applies to the aggregate purchases made, or expected to be made, by all users of the individual State contract.
Question # 120
Can Agencies submit disclosure certification forms as a scanned attachment (.pdf) via email?
 
Answer: Not at this time, however, we are considering electronic systems for future compliance.


***As of July 1, 2007, submissions can be sent for review to CD134@treas.state.nj.us ***

Last Updated: Monday, 04/02/12

Purchase & Property: Home | News | Directions | Frequently Asked Questions | Contact DPP
Treasury: Home | ServicesPeopleBusinesses | Divisions/AgenciesFormsContact Us
Statewide:
NJ Home | Services A to Z | Departments/Agencies | FAQs
Copyright © State of New Jersey, 1996 -
This site is maintained by the Division of Revenue and Enterprise Services.



Reports Accessibility Statement Legal Statement Privacy Notice Contact Us Open Public Records Act Proposed Rules and Amendments Comment or Petition for new Rule Division/Ageny Statutes and Rules Electronic Notification