On March 26, 2012 I posted a blog cautioning employers from requesting social media password, most notably, Facebook. That practice may be short-lived as legislation has been introduced in both Houses of the United States Congress making unlawful for employers or schools to require employees, students and/or candidates to provide social media password. Although several states introduced legislation in March and April of 2012, the proposed legislation may impact employers and its employees throughout the country.

Bill H.R. 5050 was introduced by House Representative Eliot Engel on April 27, 2012 and is titled Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA). The legislation seeks to make it unlawful for employers and educational institutions to: “require or request that an employee or applicant for employment provide the employer with a user name, password, or any other means for accessing a private email account of the employee or applicant or the personal account of the employee or applicant on any social networking website.” The legislation would prohibit any employer to discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or deny employment or promotion to any employee or candidate who refuses or declines to provide an email or social networking username or password. Similarly, the legislation would make it unlawful for any educational institution to require the disclosure of any email or social networking username or password and discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, deny admission to, suspend, expel, or threaten to take any such action against any student for his or her failure to do so. The full text of SNOPA can be found here :

Although SNOPA does not create a private cause of action for employees or students, any violation by an employer or educational institution may result in a fine of up to $10,000. The legislation warrants close attention from employers and employees to educational institutions and students. Similar to other areas of employment law, it is important to research state legislation as well as several states have enacted and already passed legislation similar to SNOPA.

What may now be poor policy for employers to request Facebook and other social media passwords may soon become unlawful. Stay tuned for future updates on SNOPA.

By Timothy J. Ford, Esq.

(NaturalNews) The phrase, “bloated, broken bureaucracy” could apply to a number of federal government agencies, but without question there is no more apt description of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In fact, one could add a few more adjectives, such as inept, arrogant, self-serving and – did I say inept?

So bad is the agency’s performance and reputation that more and more lawmakers are calling for this sad experiment in government-run airport security to come to an end. The latest call comes from Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who says that, for starters, TSA chief John Pistole should step down immediately.

Citing thousands of complaints about the agency in recent months, along with a litany of outrageous “searches” and behavior – all in the name of “just doing our job” (the same excuse the Nazi guards used in the Nuremberg trials) – Broun has basically pointed at the hulking 800-pound gorilla in the room in stating the obvious.

“It is clear that the TSA has become nothing more than a bloated, broken bureaucracy which uses its extensive power to violate traveling Americans’ civil liberties while doing little to ensure their safety,” Broun said in a letter to Pistole.

Can’t even deploy its equipment on time

It should be noted that in November 2010 alone, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) received 900 complaints from travelers, surprisingly not long after new invasive screening procedures were implemented.

In addition to Broun’s letter, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee has released a new report detailing the agency’s abuses and accusing the TSA of “wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by inefficiently deploying screening equipment” at the nation’s 463 airports. The report mentioned that a good portion of the TSA’s newest, state-of-the-art screening equipment remains in storage, though that’s probably good news to millions of Americans who travel, since much of that gear is comprised of high-tech x-ray machines that are far too revealing, if you follow.

“Americans can no longer tolerate the flagrant violations of their civil rights which are occurring at airports nationwide in the name of ‘security,’” Broun said.

“More importantly, the corruption and continued lack of security among TSA’s own personnel puts our country at extreme risk of another terrorist attack. The time has come for serious action to be taken,” Broun continued.

“As such, I request your immediate resignation from the position of TSA Administrator. The safety of our country’s travelers requires drastic change, and the time for that change is now.”

In late April, Broun said in an interview with Politico that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Janet Napolitano should step down as well; TSA falls under DHS. And he has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal.

Others have called for TSA’s demise

Broun is not the first lawmaker seeking to end the travel tyranny of the TSA.

Long-shot GOP presidential contender and current Texas Rep. Ron Paul has labeled the agency a “bureaucratic monster” that needs to go.

Criticizing the agency for detaining his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, during a recent trip, the elder Paul says the agency reminds him of a walking, talking Fourth Amendment violation.

“It totally voids the concept of the Fourth Amendment, searches and prodding and poking, you know, with no permission,” Paul told CNN a week after the January incident.

“They trap us into it,” he said. “There’s no way you can travel if you don’t do it. So I’ve said, you know, when you look at some of these pictures of probing groin areas and breast areas and all this, and old women having to take their clothes off, if we as a people are so complacent that we can look at that and say, oh, that’s OK, they’re making us safe.”

“It doesn’t make us safe. It undermines our liberties and there’s a much better way of giving us security at the airports than accepting the bureaucrats and the politicians in Washington. That is totally unacceptable from my viewpoint,” he said, adding that the agency should be abolished and airport security privatized.

Sources for this article include:

http://oversight.house.gov

http://dailycaller.com

http://blog.chron.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035835_TSA_resignation_bureaucracy.html#ixzz1uzJL0CrT

By WALTER BERRY

Controversial lawman denies allegations of racial profiling

Joshua Lott / Reuters file Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio attends a news conference at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Training Center Auditorium in Phoenix, Ariz., March 1.

The U.S. Justice Department has been seeking an agreement requiring Arpaio’s office to train officers in how to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops and reach out to Latinos to assure them that the department is there to also protect them.

Arpaio has denied the racial profiling allegations and has claimed that allowing a court monitor would mean that every policy decision would have to be cleared through an observer and would nullify his authority.

DOJ officials told a lawyer for Arpaio on April 3 that the lawman’s refusal of a court-appointed monitor was a deal-breaker that would end settlement negotiations and result in a federal lawsuit.

The “notice of intent to file civil action” came Wednesday from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez in a letter to an Arpaio lawyer.

Perez, who heads the DOJ’s civil rights division, noted that it’s been more than 100 days since the sheriff’s office received the DOJ’s findings report and federal authorities haven’t met with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office counsel since Feb. 6 to discuss the terms of a consent agreement.

Civil rights allegations
Neither Arpaio nor Joseph Popolizio, one of the lawyers representing the sheriff’s office, immediately returned calls seeking comment.

Last December, the DOJ released a scathing report accusing Arpaio’s office of racially profiling Latinos, basing immigration enforcement on racially charged citizen complaints and punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish in Arizona’s most populous county.

The DOJ also accused Arpaio of having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.

The civil rights allegations have led some Arpaio critics to call for his resignation, including the National Council of La Raza, a prominent advocacy group for Latinos.

The sheriff’s office also is facing criticism over more than 400 sex-crimes investigations — including dozens of alleged child molestations — that hadn’t been investigated adequately or weren’t examined at all over a three-year period ending in 2007.

Arpaio has apologized for the botched cases, reopened 432 sex-crimes investigations and made 19 arrests.

Separate from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury has been investigating Arpaio’s office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009. That grand jury is examining the investigative work of the sheriff’s anti-public corruption squad.

The self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America has been a national political fixture who has built his reputation on jailing inmates in tents and dressing them in pink underwear, selling himself to voters as unceasingly tough on crime and pushing the bounds of how far local police can go to confront illegal immigration.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By: David Matthau | NJ 101.5

Jersey’s highest court has heard oral arguments on Kyleigh’s Law.

The justices must now decide whether the law requiring new drivers to place red decals on their cars, to help police monitor their behavior, violates privacy laws.

Rockaway attorney Gregg Trautmann says the case is really about his daughter Catherine – and thousands of other young women “that are going to be out there driving alone at night, having to place a decal on their car – and make them potential victims for any creep or stalker that wants to do them harm.”

He says the law opens the door “to rapists, stalkers, people who are drunks that think it’s a target of opportunity- they can identify a woman as being between the ages of 17 and 21 – just because they have a sticker on their car and they can hunt them down and do them harm…I think what’s happened here, as with so many other laws named after people – is that they’re pushed through – this went through unanimously – but some Legislators say they now wish they could change their vote.”

Trautmann’s wife Donna says she’s concerned for her own daughter – and all other young women.

“Someone could be following” she says, “it’s just uncomfortable to me… I understand it’s supposed to be a vehicle for the police – and that’s what we’re told – but I don’t know I just feel there’s got to be other ways to protect the children.”

She says “one semester of drivers ed in school probably isn’t enough- 6 hours of a professional driver? Probably isn’t enough…my concern is that some guys are going to be out just joy-riding or waiting for her if she’s got a job somewhere in a parking lot…I know that has to be more done to protect the children, but I don’t know if this is the answer.”

The couple’s 16-year-old daughter Catherine says if she has to put a sticker on her car it’ll make her feel uncomfortable “because I would feel more like subject to being victimized by other people…if someone could be just like waiting around – oh there’s a red sticker on that car- let’s see who will come back to that car, and stuff like that…you’d always be worried that something could happen, even though – cause you never know what’s going to happen in your daily life.”

The court may take weeks – or months to reach a verdict in the case.

Obama: ‘I Think Same-Sex Couples Should Be Able to Get Married’

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

President Obama’s Evolution on Same-Sex Marriage

Roberts asked the president whether first lady Michelle Obama was involved in his decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith.

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”

Previously, Obama has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage but has consistently stopped short of outright backing it.

Instead, he has voiced support for civil unions for gay and lesbian couples that provide the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, although not defined as “marriage.” At the same time, the president has opposed efforts to ban gay marriage at the state level, saying that he did not favor attempts to strip rights away from gay and lesbian couples.

The president’s position became a flashpoint this week, when Vice President Joe Biden pronounced himself “absolutely comfortable” with allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Obama aides insisted there was no daylight between the positions held by the president and his vice president when it comes to legal rights, but as other prominent Democrats also weighed in favor of gay marriage, the disconnect became difficult for the White House to explain away.

The announcement completes a turnabout for the president, who has opposed gay marriage throughout his career in national politics. In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.

In 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: “I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

He maintained that position through his 2008 presidential campaign, and through his term as president, until today.

As president in 2010, Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving. I struggle with this.” A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.”

“I probably won’t make news right now, George,” Obama said in October 2011. “But I think that there’s no doubt that as I see friends, families, children of gay couples who are thriving, you know, that has an impact on how I think about these issues.”

Obama’s decision has political connotations for the fall. The issue divides elements of the Democratic base, with liberals and gay-rights groups eager to see the president go further, but with gay marriage far less popular among African-American voters.

Just yesterday, in North Carolina, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, and its status as a 2012 battleground state was guaranteed by Democrats’ decision to hold their convention in Charlotte this summer.

Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state’s highest court, as governor, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage.

“My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.”

By: Jacquelyn Smith, Forbes Staff

With the employment picture finally perking up in some major metropolitan areas, job seekers might be tempted to limit their job search to the areas with the healthiest employment numbers. But low unemployment doesn’t always mean it’s the best place for finding a job.

While cities with low unemployment might be the easiest areas for some to land a job, there may be little diversity in the industries hiring, the cost of living can be high, and the required skill sets can be too specific.

The human resources firm Adecco Staffing U.S. looked at the U.S. cities with the fullest employment, according to the Department of Labor, as well as internal data around job growth and demand, and then determined which areas are the best for finding a job. The ranking reflects considerations such as: the diversity of industries in the city, the cost of living, the range in size of companies offering employment, and high level of education among its residents. All those factors were weighed equally.

In Pictures: The Best Cities For Finding Employment Right Now

The top spot goes to the Washington, D.C.-Arlington-Alexandria, Va. metro area, where the unemployment rate is 5.5%, as of March 2012. From March 2011 to March 2012, the unemployment level dropped by .3%, indicating that an already strong market is improving.

“Washington, D.C. and Arlington both have a large population of degreed individuals which matches the skill sets that are seeing the most demand right now; business and professional services, engineering and healthcare,” says Bob Kovalsky, a senior vice president of Adecco Staffing. “Additionally, the proximity to Washington, D.C. means a large number of organizations have local ties or offices in the area, regardless of industry.”

In terms of a quality of life, the area offers strong school systems, consistent mass transit, which makes for easy commuting, and a number of colleges and universities, Kovalsky adds.

The Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas area, which has an unemployment rate of 6.0%, holds the No. 2 spot. “Austin has really become known as a great place to live as the city is known for its diversity and cultural activities,” says Kristy Willis, a senior vice president at Adecco Staffing. “This combination has encouraged companies to flock to the area as a high level of local universities ensures a large, highly skilled pool of talent.”

Austin, which is home to the University of Texas and many other higher education institutions, is just one of many college towns in which local businesses do heavy recruiting locally, knowing that there are plenty of educated, talented candidates in the area.

No 3. Ithaca is another example of city with a diverse and highly educated labor force. With employment at 5.9%, Ithaca remains one of the few expanding economies in New York, according to Adecco.

“Ithaca shares the same characteristic of Austin and the Washington, D.C. area of having a number of colleges and universities close by, and the area is seeing strong growth in the technology and biotech sectors,” says Lauren Griffin, a senior vice president at Adecco Staffing. Cornell University also conducts a good amount of research in the area which increases employment, she adds.

Ithaca’s top hiring industries right now are education, manufacturing, tourism and technology.

“With all these cities having unemployment rates below the national average, it certainly shows that a job seeker doesn’t need to live in one of the United State’s top large cities to find job opportunities,” says Janette Marx, a senior vice president at Adecco Staffing. “From a national perspective, those Americans with a college degree that are looking for work are at a higher advantage, particularly in the sectors we’re seeing demand in.”

Click here to see the complete list of The 10 Best Cities For Finding Employment Right Now.

Forced Retirement: Laws to Protect Workers

While many people plan to work until age 65 when they become eligible for Social Security, others would prefer to retire at age 62 when their Medicare eligibility kicks in. For some long-time workers, retirement can also happen without warning. Unexpected health problems, companies going out of business, or a layoff can force you into retiring earlier than you might have planned.

If an employee has planned to retire at 65, but then finds the quality of work atmosphere to be less than pleasant, their hours are repeatedly cut, or other (younger) employees are being given preferential treatment, it could be a case of age discrimination.
Guidelines

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), forcing an employee into retirement at any point during their career is a form of employment discrimination. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the federal equal employment opportunity laws. Once a case is filed, the EEOC attempts to resolve the dispute through voluntary compliance on the part of the employer. Employees do not have to wait until the EEOC brings action against an employer, and may pursue legal action even before a claim is filed. However, once the EEOC decides to take action, the employee’s right to sue expires.
Laws

Legally, employers cannot consider an employee’s age, gender, race, religion, actual or perceived disability, national origin or age as a factor in job selection, promotion or termination. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 protects employees who are age 40 and older. The act applies to all U.S. employers with at least 20 employees. State laws vary across the country, and may provide additional protections to older workers. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to specifically prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees.
Performance

Employers are allowed to post job notices based on age if they can prove that their age limits are reasonably necessary for a specific job. Some professions – airline pilots, firefighters, and school teachers, to name a few – hold exception to the law. In general, these are careers that require specialized skills, physical strength, or mental ability, and age could become a factor in maintaining the mental acuity or dexterity necessary to perform the required tasks required by the position.
File a Complaint

In many cases, employees are known to accept early retirement packages simply because they worry about being made to retire under less than favorable conditions if they stay on to ride out their time on the job. Employees who are forced into early retirement by their employers can file a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, regardless of the way they left. Since their employers did not terminate their employment, but actually claimed the employee as “retiring”, the claimant must show that unfair treatment was the reason for retiring early. Basically the employee has to prove that the employer created an unpleasant experience for them in the workplace, and that he or she had no other option but to retire. Stress, physical health issues and psychological factors often play a part in older adults who face early retirement against their will.

It is unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.

References
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Facts About Age Discrimination
The ABA Family Legal Guide: Age Discrimination

By DEREK HARPER and HOA NGUYEN Staff Writers | Atlantic City Press

The TRU-ID system

New Jersey was to have rolled out new TRU-ID drive’rs license and identity cards starting Monday. Drivers born before Dec. 1, 1964, were to have been allowed to renew by mail through November 2014, although that time frame now remains in question, officials said. The new eight-year licenses would double in price to $48, and would have new requirements:

One proof of identity:

Current U.S. passport or passport card

Certified U.S. birth certificate or consular report of birth abroad

Permanent Resident (Green) Card

Current Employment Authorization Document

Current foreign passport, with valid visa and I-94 document

Naturalization or citizenship certificate

Other federal REAL ID-compliant ID (with another document from this list)

A valid Social Security number:

U.S.-issued Social Security card

Most recent W-2 or 1099 form

Pay stub

with name and Social Security number

Two documents showing of residence:

State Motor Vehicle Commission driver’s license renewal form

Utility or credit card bill from the last 90 days

Checking or savings account statement from the last 60 days

Mail from a federal, state or local government agency from the last six months

Property tax bill, statement or receipt from the last year

Current lease or rental agreement

A certification from a parent or guardian, for those younger than 18

If the TRU-ID program goes forward, the following will no longer be valid to prove identity:

Any expired document

New Jersey driver’s license, boat license, firearms purchaser card, nondriver’s ID, public assistance card or property tax statement

U.S. military active duty, retiree, dependent ID, military discharge papers or Veteran’s Affairs universal access ID

FAA pilot’s license

U.S. adoption papers

Employee ID with pay stub

School or college ID

High school diploma, GED or college degree

Other federal, state or local government IDs

Bank statement or ATM card

Source: New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

Who and when

Drivers born after Dec. 1, 1964, and all commercial driver’s license holders:

Were to have faced TRU-ID enhanced documentation requirements starting May 7, 2012.

Older IDs no longer valid to access airplanes, nuclear plants or federal facilities such as courthouses, by Dec. 1, 2014.

Drivers born on or before Dec. 1, 1964:

Were to have been allowed to renew drivers licenses through the mail until November 2013 (Cost: $11)

Were to have complied with the new standards by Dec. 1, 2013.

Older IDs no longer valid to access airplanes, nuclear plants or federal facilities, such as courthouses, by Dec. 1, 2017

Source: New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

Monday was to have marked the start of the state’s new TRU-ID program to tighten motor vehicle license requirements.

But due to a court challenge the American Civil Liberties Union filed late Friday, the changes now have been temporarily postponed, according to Michael Horan, a spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

“We’re extremely disappointed that they did this 11th-hour end run,” Horan said of the ACLU, adding that the organization had months to file an objection. “We thought it was disingenuous.”

On Friday, the ACLU successfully filed an injunction temporarily blocking the institution of the program, according to Horan. As a result, instead of instituting their new program on Monday, lawyers for the state Motor Vehicle Commission will head to the Chancery Division of Superior Court in Mercer County to litigate the case, he said.

Horan declined to detail the ACLU’s objections to the program. The ACLU plans to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. Monday in Newark detailing its opposition to the program. The organization did not comment on the court action Sunday.

The new scheme was to have replaced the current 6 Point ID verification program, approved by the state Motor Vehicle Commission in 2003, which required motorists to present multiple forms of identification before receiving a driver’s license.

The biggest change: A previously valid state drivers license would no longer be used to prove one’s identity.

Horan said the changes will bring the state’s driver’s license in line with new federal requirements and allow motorists to use the license as identification for air travel.

Under the proposed changes, drivers would need to present a passport, birth certificate, Green Card, foreign passport or other compliant documents with the federal REAL ID program. Drivers also would need to bring a document with one’s Social Security number, along with two proofs of residency, including MVC renewal form, recent utility, banking statements, mail from a government agency, or a property tax bill or rental lease.

A number of secondary proofs of identity, such as military IDs, federal pilot’s licenses or most other government-issued photo IDs would no longer be accepted.

The licenses also would double in price, from $24 to $48, but would be valid for eight years, twice as long as now.

On Friday, several people at the MVC office in Egg Harbor Township’s Shore Mall said the proposed changes did not trouble them.

“I think it’s great,” said Patrick Tobin, 37, of Margate. “They should make you show one to vote.” He waited in the mall, near the entrance to the busy center, for his girlfriend to finish registering her vehicle. A poster advertising the TRU-ID changes hung in the office window.

Michele Smith, 39, of Margate, joined him, and Tobin told her he supported the restrictions. “I think it’s good. Put that down,” she said to a reporter. “I could care less.”

Moments later Monet Gaynor, 21, met her mother as her mother left with a renewed license. The two Egg Harbor Township residents glanced at the poster and both said the requirements did not seem excessive.

“Oh, it’s not that bad,” Gaynor said.

Because of the expected crush at motor vehicle agencies by the 6 million New Jersey drivers, officials were planning to allow standard driver’s license holders born before Dec. 1, 1964, to renew by mail starting July 1. By Dec. 1, 2017, however, they would have to get in line with everyone else.

Horan said delaying the start of TRU-ID puts in jeopardy plans for the mail-in program.

The licenses are the state’s response to the 2005 federal REAL ID Act. That law was itself a reaction to a central finding by the 9/11 Commission that while drivers’ licenses are near-universal IDs, the different states’ equirements were inconsistent and a target for abuse.

By December 2014, everyone born after Dec. 1, 1964, will need one of these enhanced IDs to access federal facilities such as a courthouse, enter a nuclear power plant or board a flight. Older motorists are grandfathered until 2017.

To be able to issue REAL ID-compliant licenses, New Jersey has spent about $8.8 million upgrading its computers, and installing facial recognition and other technologies. There have been 150 separate grants from the federal Department of Homeland Security, totaling $175 million.

These new licenses will be marked with a gold star, but are otherwise identical to current licenses. In March, Raymond P. Martinez, MVC chief administrator, told reporters “Come 2017, if it doesn’t have a ‘star,’ it might as well have been bought at a five-and-dime store.”

For now, any new New Jersey licenses issued Monday won’t carry the gold star, and as a result aren’t fully compliant with the REAL ID program, Horan said.

The REAL ID Act has proved controversial with more than 40 states and territories passing laws or resolutions in opposition. So far, nine other states have passed REAL-ID compliant licenses, the closest being Delaware.

Staff Writer Hoa Nguyen contributed to this report.

Contact Derek Harper:

609-272-7046

DHarper@pressofac.com

Contact Hoa Nguyen:

609-272-7203

HNguyen@pressofac.com

Laws and Regulations
The Division of Wage and Hour Compliance administers and enforces New Jersey State Labor Laws by enforcing a minimum wage, methods of wage payment and by enforcing the laws concerning the employment of children.

The Division of Wage and Hour Compliance regulates the following workplace labor standards:

MINIMUM WAGE – The New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law establishes a minimum wage rate and overtime rate for all workers in New Jersey that are covered by the Act.

Effective July 24, 2009, the minimum wage rate in New Jersey is $7.25 per hour.

OVERTIME WAGE RATE – The New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law requires the payment of time and one half per hour for actual hours worked in excess of 40 hours, with certain exemptions.

UNPAID OR WITHHELD WAGES – The New Jersey State Wage Payment Law stipulates the time, manner and mode of payment, and prohibits the withholding of wages for illegal deductions, such as breakage, spillage and cash register shortages.

FRINGE BENEFITS – The New Jersey Wage Payment Law and Selected Labor Laws enforce separate benefit packages which the employer has agreed to provide, such as payment of holidays, vacation, sick leave and personal days, and reimbursement of certain expenses.

SHELTERED WORKSHOP – The New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law authorizes the employment of individuals with disabilities by charitable organizations or institutions at a rate less than the minimum wage, and requires the issuing of special permits detailing the duration, type of work performed and the payment of commensurate wages.

EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS – The New Jersey Child Labor Law and Regulations specify the hours of work for minors, the type of occupations permitted to be performed, and the issuance of proper employment certificates for all minors under 18 years of age.

FARM LABOR – The New Jersey Crew Leader Registration Act and Selected Farm Labor Laws require the registration of crew leaders, and outlines minimum wage and wage payment standards, and authorizes the investigation and site inspection of migrant farm labor camps, drinking water and toilet facilities, contractors, growers and food processors operating in the State of New Jersey.

APPAREL INDUSTRY – The New Jersey Apparel Registration Act requires the registration of anyone engaged in manufacturing or contracting in the apparel or embroidery industries in New Jersey as well as any person outside the State who contracts to perform work in the State of New Jersey.

INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK – The New Jersey Industrial Homework Law and Regulations require the issuing of licenses, permits and certificates for employers and home-based businesses involved in the manufacturing, altering, finishing and distribution of certain articles, materials and goods. The manufacturing of apparel in the home by a home worker performing work for an apparel manufacturer or contractor is prohibited.

MANDATORY OVERTIME RESTRICTIONS (applies only to health care workers) – The New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law stipulates the conditions under which health care facilities may require certain hourly employees to work overtime.

STATE BUILDING SERVICE CONTRACTS – The State Building Service Contracts Act stipulates the payment of federal wage and benefit rates for workers performing “building services” for properties or premises owned or leased by the State.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ACT – The Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act concerns the improper classification of employees as independent contractors in the construction industry.

PUBLIC CONTRACTS – The New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act stipulates the payment of prevailing wage rates for workers on construction projects that are subsidized by public funds, and establishes a fair bidding mechanism for both union and non-union workers.

CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION – The Public Works Contractor Registration Act establishes a unified procedure for the registration of contractors and subcontractors engaged in public works building projects. Requires an annual registration fee of $300 and after successful completion of two consecutive years of registration, a contractor may elect to register for a two year period and pay a registration of $500.

AP) MIAMI — Federal authorities charged 107 doctors, nurses and social workers in seven cities with Medicare fraud Wednesday in a nationwide crackdown on unrelated scams that allegedly billed the taxpayer-funded program of $452 million — the highest dollar amount in a single Medicare bust in U.S. history.

It was the latest in a string of major arrests in the past two years as authorities have targeted fraud that’s believed to cost the government between $60 billion and $90 billion each year. Stopping Medicare’s budget from hemorrhaging that money will be key to paying for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder partnered in 2009 to increase enforcement by allocating more money and staff and creating strike forces in fraud hot spots.

Office of Inspecter General federal agents load computers seized from Willsand Home Health Agency, Inc. into a van in Miami, Wednesday, May 2, 2012. Federal authorities charged more than 100 doctors, nurses and social workers in seven cities with Medicare fraud in a nationwide crackdown on unrelated scams that allegedly billed the taxpayer-funded program of $452 million. (Credit: AP Photo/Alan Diaz)

“When President Obama took office he asked Attorney General Holder and me to make fraud prevention a cabinet-level priority,” Sebelius said in remarks prepared for a news conference in Washington.

Among those arrested Wednesday were the owners of two community mental health centers in Baton Rouge, charged with billing $225 million in their scams. Hoor Naz Jafri and Roslyn Dogan allegedly recruited vulnerable patients, including elderly people, drug addicts and the mentally ill. Patient charts were doctored to show services that were billed to Medicare but often never given, according to an indictment.

Authorities suspended their companies in May 2011, but the pair continued billing Medicare after purchasing another fraudulent company, according to the indictment. When feds shut down that company, the pair tried to sell their “beneficiaries” to other providers in an attempt to keep making money.

During the investigation, federal authorities tried to put a hold on the company’s bank account. Dogan asked to visit the U.S. Attorney’s Office to review and copy documents that had been seized as part of a search. After the visit, “Dogan and co-conspirators bragged that, while pretending to copy files, they actually stole incriminating documents from the files and later destroyed them.” Dogan referred to herself as a “smooth criminal,” according to the indictment.

Another co-conspirator bragged to Dogan and others that he had a “bonfire with fabricated notes that law enforcement officers had failed to seize during the search,” according to the indictment.

They could face life in prison if convicted. A woman who answered the phone at one of the companies hung up and an email to the company was not immediately returned.

Five others were charged in connection with the Baton Rouge scam, capping a six-year investigation.

“The results we are announcing today are at the heart of an administration-wide commitment to protecting American taxpayers from health care fraud,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We are determined to bring to justice those who violate our laws and defraud the Medicare program for personal gain.

More than 50 defendants were also arrested in Miami in unrelated scams totaling $136 million involving community mental health centers and home health care agencies. A handful of those arrested also had criminal backgrounds, according to federal agents.

Community mental health centers are the latest trend in Medicare fraud, which has developed more complex schemes over the years, moving from medical equipment and HIV infusion fraud to ambulance scams, as crooks try to stay one step ahead of authorities. The scams have also grown more sophisticated using patient recruiters who are paid kickbacks for recruiting patients, while doctors, nurses and company owners coordinate to make it appear they are delivering medical services which they are not.

“Medicare fraud also exposes some of our most vulnerable citizens to identity theft, and, in some cases, endangers patients’ lives,” said Gary Cantrell, Deputy Inspector General for Investigations for HHS. “The indictments announced today demonstrate that we’re fighting back.”

Wednesday’s arrests come as top lawmakers appealed to health care professionals in the private sector to help combat Medicare fraud. Six members of the Senate Finance Committee, led by Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), announced a bipartisan effort to begin soliciting ideas from interested stakeholders in the health care community looking for a fresh perspective and potentially solutions that may have been overlooked.

“To date, numerous efforts have been made to reduce fraud, yielding a mixed record of successes and failures,” according to the letter.

Sebelius said her agency and the Justice Department have more than quadrupled the number of strike teams around the country, charging hundreds of individuals with Medicare fraud.

Medicare fraud has been a hot button issue as federal officials have repeatedly come under fire for seemingly staying one step behind the criminals, using outdated technology and not coordinating efficiently with law enforcement.

But Sebelius touted a new data system that will allow authorities to spot trends in billing patterns more quickly, which will ideally stop payments before they go out the door.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched a $77 million computer system last summer to serve that purpose, but the program has yielded few results in the early stages and drawn criticism from the Senate Finance Committee.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Lawmakers sped the law’s passage in 2010 after the high-profile suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, whose roommate used a webcam to spy on Clementi’s intimate encounter with another man.

Gov. Chris Christie has signed New Jersey’s tough anti-bullying legislation into law.

The law — which requires schools to develop anti-harassment programs and review how bullying is handled — was set aside earlier this year after one small school district complained about the cost of training and materials.

A local mandates council agreed the law created a financial burden.

But lawmakers and Christie soon reached a deal for the state to provide $1 million in funding. The money will be awarded as reimbursement grants that districts can seek once they use up free training materials available online.

Lawmakers sped the law’s passage in 2010 after the high-profile suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, whose roommate used a webcam to spy on Clementi’s intimate encounter with another man.

By: Lloyd Chapman – Small business advocate | The Huffington Post

Today, under various federal laws, the term “small business” can define a range of companies, from businesses with less than 50 employees, to publicly traded corporations as large as Lockheed Martin — the federal government’s largest prime contractor.

This question of how big a “small business” is, is of critical importance to our national economy.

For example, when the House approved the Republican-sponsored “Small Business Tax Cut Act (H.R.9)” last week, legislators neglected to mention that under the bill many hedge funds, investment firms, C-corporations and pass-throughs worth billions of dollars would also be eligible for the 20 percent income tax deduction next year.

The text of H.R. 9 states that a “qualified small business” may receive a 20 percent deduction on their active business income taxes for the taxable year. A “qualified small business,” for the purposes of the bill, is defined as 500 employees or less.

But when you look at the composition of all U.S. firms, a size standard of 500 employees as a “small business,” makes no sense. According to the Census Bureau, 98 percent of all U.S. firms have less than 100 employees and 89 percent of all U.S. firms have less than 20 employees.

Arbitrarily using a 500 employee size standard would therefore grant thousands, if not millions of large businesses a 20 percent tax deduction and discourage firms just shy of the 500 employee threshold from making new hires (What’s more, any good economist can tell you that temporary tax cuts for any size business do not create jobs — last week Republican Congressman Tom McClintock even acknowledged that at best, H.R. 9 “produces a one-year sugar high until the bills come due”).

Christian Science Monitor Guest blogger Howard Gleckman also suggested in a blog on Wednesday that “Even Mitt Romney’s former investment firm Bain Capital might be eligible for this “small business” subsidy. Although it manages an estimated $66 billion, Bain employees only 400 professionals. With a lean enough support staff, it might be one of those lucky small businesses.”

This misguided piece of legislation therefore highlights the extremely important question — how big is a small business?

If you look in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) today, a “small business” varies by number of employees and annual revenue, depending on its industry. These different size standards range anywhere from 100 to 1500 employees for employee-based business size determinations, and from $4.5 to $36 million annual revenue for revenue-based business size determinations. The Small Business Act also states that a small business must be independently owned, which would exclude publicly traded companies.

Yet the latest evaluation of federal data from the Obama Administration shows that hundreds of publicly traded companies, even Fortune 500 firms receive federal small business contracts every year. Other loopholes allow companies as large as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to hijack federal small business contracts for up to five years if they purchase a small business that holds a federal contract.

Although H.R. 9 is expected to die in the Senate, it should be clear that whether it’s tax policy or acquisition policy, the question of how big a “small business” is, needs to be resolved.

If Congress were to establish policy that prevented publicly traded corporations and giant companies from receiving federal small business contracts and tax subsidies, our national economy would vastly improve, because legitimate small businesses are the engine of economic growth in America — according to the Census Bureau, legitimate small businesses create 90 percent of net new jobs.

I would imagine that 99 percent of people in America would agree, that whatever Congress decides a small business is, Fortune 500 firms and multi-billion dollar investment firms should not be allowed to fit into that definition.

Follow Lloyd Chapman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LloydChapman

Medical negligence and breach of duty claims can be separated by the courts Lessons to be learned from a case in which a surgeon had a resident perform part of surgery.

By: B. Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA; Lawrence H. Brenner, JD | Orthopedics Today

Informed consent constitutes a complex inquiry. We continue to examine this doctrine in this column through the review of a case from Maryland that addresses specific physician duties that arise under this doctrine.

In this legal action filed in Baltimore, a patient alleged that her surgeon had failed to perform surgery in the manner they had agreed. Specifically, the patient alleged that while the doctor promised to do the operation himself, he delegated much of that responsibility to his resident.
Dingle v. Belin 1999

The patient, Ms. Belin, consulted a general surgeon, Lenox Dingle, MD, to perform a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. During surgery, Dingle was assisted by a medical student and a resident; the latter had just begun the 4th year of general surgery training. The attending surgeon retracted tissues to expose the surgical field, while the resident dissected and removed the gall bladder.

Although assessed as routine, a problem occurred during surgery when the resident dissected and clipped the common bile duct instead of the cystic duct. This resulted in leakage of bile into the abdominal cavity, which, in turn, led to pain and discomfort and further extensive surgery at another institution.

In the ensuing lawsuit, the patient alleged negligence from lack of informed consent, negligence in the performance of surgery and other claims. A trial-court jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendant resident and attending physician following the presentation of evidence on the negligence counts. A claim related to breach of contract was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

The claims for breach of contract and lack of informed consent were based on the assertion that when the patient agreed to the operation, she insisted and the surgeon agreed that while he would be assisted by one or more residents, he would do the actual cutting and removal of the gall bladder. The patient said she knew that the hospital was a teaching institution affiliated with a university, hence the request to the attending surgeon that he perform the surgery and only use a resident if absolutely necessary.

Instead, the patient alleged that without her knowledge or consent, the resident played an active and major role in the surgery. By failing to inform her of the scope of responsibilities that the resident would perform, both the resident and the attending surgeon had breached their duty to secure her informed consent before operating. Such information was material, she said, because had she known of the active role to be played by the resident, she would not have consented to the surgery. In essence, the patient alleged that the informed consent was defectively obtained, and that her damages occurred as a result.
Breach of contract

The plaintiff’s claim relates to an alleged breach of contract. She asserted that the surgeon entered into an oral contract when he agreed that he would identify the anatomy and do the necessary cutting and clipping of structures. In consideration, the patient said she agreed to allow the attending surgeon to do the case. By letting the resident cut and clip her gall bladder, the attending surgeon had breached the contract. The same damages alleged in the counts related to medical negligence were asserted, namely, compensation for injuries, damages and losses, all of which flowed from the breach of contract.

The undisputed facts in this case were: Both the resident and attending surgeon actively participated in the operation; the resident did the dissecting and the attending did the retraction; and that while the patient was aware that one or more residents would be assisting, she had no prior contact with the particular resident who did the cholecystectomy.

The disputed evidence related to exactly what the patient told the surgeon before signing the consent; she worked as a surgical technician and was well aware that residents sometimes performed surgery. She claimed to have told her surgeon that she wanted him to operate, and “if you have a resident in there, I just want that person to maybe suture me up.” She said the surgeon agreed to this. The surgeon had a signed consent, which authorized him “and/or such assistants as may be selected and supervised by him” to perform the operation. The form had a space for special remarks or comments by patient, which was left blank.

Expert testimony for the defense offered that typically, the attending surgeon does the retracting, which requires keen hand-eye coordination to expose the gall bladder safely. Plaintiff’s experts agreed that this arrangement was fairly standard, absent some previous agreement that this would not occur.
History and reasoning

The trial court dismissed the breach of contract complaint on the theory that it was subsumed under the negligence count. An intermediate appellate panel, upon review of the facts, and in reliance on an earlier New Jersey case, found merit in the breach of contract theory and the case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the breach of contract claim against the surgeon separate from her case claim for medical malpractice.

In its analysis, the court said that in obtaining informed consent, the “risks, benefits, collateral effects, and alternatives normally must be disclosed routinely, but other considerations, at least if raised by the patient, may also need to be discussed and resolved.” It reasoned that the doctor-patient relationship is essentially a contractual one, either expressly or by implication. Legal actions alleging a breach of contract may arise if a doctor acts in contravention of a contractual undertaking; such actions are founded either on a breach of warranty theory, alleging a warranty by the physician of a particular result or on a promise independent of a medical procedure. As an example, the court cited a 1987 Maryland case, Chew v. Meyer, in which a doctor had failed to perform his agreement to complete and submit a patient’s insurance forms.
AMA to the rescue

In its opinion, the court cited the 1982 American Medical Association (AMA) Judicial Council Opinion 8.12, which states a surgeon may use the services of assisting residents or other assisting surgeons to the extent necessary, but “if a resident or other physician is to perform the operation under the guidance of the surgeon, it is necessary to make a full disclosure of this fact to the patient, and this should be evidenced by an appropriate statement contained in the consent.”

A 1994 update to the 1982 AMA opinion reads: “with the consent of the patient, it is not unethical for the operating surgeon to delegate the performance of certain aspects of the operation to the assistant provided this is done under the surgeon’s participatory supervision, i.e., the surgeon must scrub. If a resident or other physician is to perform the operation under non-participatory supervision, it is necessary to make a full disclosure of this fact to the patient, and this should be evidenced by an appropriate statement contained in the consent.”

After examining the judicial landscape pertaining to informed consent, the court concluded that because the doctor-patient relationship is a contractual one, it is permissible for the parties, if they so choose, to define the role the doctor is to play. The most prudent place to do this, it reasoned, is the informed consent document itself, where a special note or comment can attest to any understanding reached between the doctor and the patient. In the context to the case, the court said that a doctor, who partially abandons his or her patient by improperly delegating professional tasks to others that he or she was engaged and agreed to do personally, may be liable for traditional professional negligence, lack of informed consent and breach of contract depending in part on the nature of the consequences that flow from that abandonment.

Although Belin did not recover on her breach of contract claim for unrelated reasons, the court recognized that claim asserted against Dingle was properly submitted to the jury. As with legal cases that reach appeal, the educational value flows from the analysis and discussion of law offered by the appellate court, rather than a determination of who ultimately “won.”

The key is that the court separated a breach of contractual duty claim from a medical negligence claim in a lawsuit in which a patient alleged that her doctor told her that he would do the case, instead of the resident.

For more information:

B. Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA, is associate professor of hip and knee replacement in the department of orthopedic surgery, University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Lawrence H. Brenner, JD, is on the faculties of orthopedics at Yale University and the University of Southern California and practices in Chapel Hill, N.C. Address all correspondence to Brenner at lb@lawrencebrennerlaw.com.

Published: Monday, April 30, 2012, 6:18 AM
By: Star-Ledger Editorial Board

Doug Bauman/For The Jersey JournalSen. Nicholas Sacco is shown in this June file photo.

We give you state Sen. Nicholas Sacco, the political boss of North Bergen, a man so shameless that he makes the other politicians look like selfless and decent fellows.

Sacco, a Democrat, has three public jobs that bring him a combined salary of $299,000. That should be criminal in itself, but Sacco and his pals in Trenton have blocked one governor after another as they have tried to ban this kind of slurping at the public trough.

We all knew about that part. What’s new, as The Star-Ledger’s Jarrett Renshaw reported yesterday, is that Sacco has accumulated $332,000 in unused sick time. If he retires tomorrow, that’s what he’s entitled to take from his local taxpayers — the regular middle-class folks he claims to faithfully represent.

“Is that fair to people?” Sacco asks. “Maybe not, but that is the contract that existed.”
Give him this much: He won’t pretend this is justifiable. But he does pretend that it’s not his fault, that the rules of the game were somehow thrust upon him.

Please. Sacco is a key player in Trenton, where these rules are made. That’s because he controls politics in North Bergen, where he is the mayor, the assistant superintendent and the state senator. He decides who runs for which office. He controls the local patronage. His machine churns out votes so decisively that other bosses are envious.

New Jersey laws on sick pay are crazy. In the private sector, sick pay protects us from losing income when we are ill. That has morphed into a cash entitlement in most New Jersey towns, thanks to the power of unions. A few years back, four retiring cops in Parsippany walked away with a combined $900,000.

Maybe it’s unfair to pick on Sacco. Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo, also a Democrat, collects an annual pension of $69,000 on top of his salary, while he’s still working. He might get another $60,000 in sick pay, but promises he won’t take more than $26,000. Imagine the sacrifice.

Gov. Chris Christie wants to end this, but the sad fact is that taking back benefits that were promised by contract is illegal. The governor is overreaching on that point.

But we can at least change the rules, starting now, so that there will never again be a case like Sacco’s.

The governor’s position on that is straightforward — no more cash for sick time. On that point, he is absolutely right.

Democrats are resisting. They have moved in his direction, thanks to his clubbing them over the head on this issue for months. Still, the dithering goes on, and thousands of public employees continue to build up benefits.

Our hope is that Christie keeps clubbing Democrats until they submit.

The governor’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, got it exactly right when he was asked about Sacco.

“I can’t say the words I’m really thinking,” he told Renshaw.

Neither can we.

By Daniel Nee | Brick Patch

Almost a month ago, the federal government told boaters the party was over at Brick’s F-Cove.

Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is making good on the message that was posted on signs erected at the site several weeks ago. Anchored, floating barrels now physically prevent boats from entering F-Cove and another nearby local boaters’ hangout commonly known as No Name Cove.

F-Cove, which was slated decades ago to become a residential lagoon community, developed into an anchorage for local recreational boaters, who for years spent days of fun, music and partying in the waterway, dug out in the shape of the letter ‘F.’

The cove, located just north of the Mantoloking Bridge and the former Traders Cove Marina in Barnegat Bay, eventually became part of the Edwyn B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, a string of open space stretching from Brick to the northern part of Atlantic County.

Public access to the Brick portion of the refuge at F-Cove is being restricted because the refuge’s current manager, Virginia Rettig, has determined that recreational boating does not fit within the context of proper usage for such a designated area.

“Any activity that we permit there has to be tied to the needs and requirements of wildlife before they can be tied to what we need to do to recreate,” Rettig told Brick Patch earlier this month when signs were posted in the cove warning boaters against accessing the site.

The issue of boaters congregating in the cove first became an issue in 2009, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially began the process of banning recreational boaters and threatened to anchor bollards at the site’s entrance and fill in the lagoons.

At that time, township officials put forth legal arguments that the federal government had no business restricting access to the cove since the bay water that filled the lagoons constituted a tidal waterway held in the public trust. After the threat of litigation, the federal government retreated.

But since then, township officials say refuge managers have honed their legal case and established their ownership of the waterway. Since the lagoons in F-Cove were man-made, they do not legally count as a tidal waterway, the federal government’s argument goes.

“They established ownership to the mouth” of the cove, Mayor Stephen C. Acropolis said.

This time around, the township will not consider legal action against the federal government, the mayor said. The only way to gain back access to F-Cove will be through cooperation.

“We’re switching from a lawsuit-type mode,” Acropolis said. “I’ve switched to, ‘when can you open it back up?’”

Some parts of the overall refuge are open to the public. The Holgate portion, on the southern tip of Long Beach Island, has long been a location where four wheel drive vehicles have been allowed, for instance.

Rettig will appear before the township council on Tuesday, presumably to discuss public access to the site.

“We want to find out, if we can’t get it open fully to motorized watercraft, can we get the trails open, can we get it open to kayaks, people who want to fish?” said the mayor.

Councilman Joseph Sangiovanni said the issue of accessing the cove was a major issue in town the last time there were threats to close the area.

“Because of the enormous support we got from the residents, we were able to put it off for a few years,” said Sangiovanni.

The council meeting where Rettig is scheduled to appear is set for Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the township municipal complex.