>> major funding is provided by RWJ Barnabas health, let's be healthy together.

Rowan University, educating New Jersey leaders, partnering with New Jersey businesses, transforming New Jersey's future.

Promotional support provided by New Jersey Ms. Ms. magazine, the Magness -- New Jersey business magazine, reporting to executive and legislative leaders in all 21 counties of the Garden State since 1954.

And by politicos New Jersey playbook, online at Politico.com.

♪ David: drawing a line in the sand.

Principal or expediency?

hi everybody.

It's Reporters Roundtable.

Our panel of free speech or's today includes Lilo Stayton, Dustin Rast C.O.P., and Brent Johnson.

We will hear from the panel in just a bit.

We begin today with the party line, the system of preference given to favored candidates which some studies show makes a candidate who gets it almost unbeatable.

Our guest this morning phot the line became -- before he became part of the establishment.

He's running for Gavin are now -- governor now.

Steve Philip joins us now.

Welcome back to the St show.

-- to the show.

We will work our way around to some other issues here.

A lot of people have joined this case.

There are two cases now.

Are you playing an active role in either?

>> no.

Six month -- six months ago, we were vocal on calling for abolishment prior to this.

I think at this point, there's enough people that the judge knows that the public sentiment is that it's time for it to change.

David: Andy Kim's case, seeking an injunction.

Should a judge be telling a party how to run its primaries?

>> look, I think the more interesting thing about that question is not what Andy Kim or the plaintiff is saying in this case.

There's not one single chairman that has vocally defended the line.

Since this all started, you haven't seen any of the picture people come up and say, this is the reason the line exists.

They inherently know it's wrong and it's going away.

Absent a judge making the decision, those people won't do it by their own choice.

It's important for a judge to see what we should do.

David: so you support Murphy for Senate but also support Kim's suit, is that right?

steve: it's a complicated situation.

I didn't know Andy Kim initially.

It's totally fair that Tammy has been an early supporter of a lot of the initiatives we did here.

I felt comfortable with her knowing that I have a year and a half left of Mayor.

I wanted to work with somebody I knew.

There's a lot of things that they put forward that I don't agree with from a policy standpoint.

At the end of the day, I made a decision in the first couple days and that's what I said so I'm going to stick with it.

It doesn't mean I can't criticize a campaign.

I don't agree with the process around the line.

The powerbrokers influencing the election the way they have.

David: that sounds to me like buyers regret.

Steve: I'm not going to call it buyers regret.

I made a decision, I have to stick with it.

Again, I feel like the campaign has really not made a compelling case around her candidacy.

If I'm being honest and fair, I think that there's a lot still needed to define her as why she is seeking the seat and why she's a better candidate for it.

Saying the maternal health issue is the reason that she should be in the Senate isn't one that would move enough voters to secure the seat for her.

There's a lot of runway over the next three months.

My hope is that the campaign switches into another gear.

David: the goal has to be to present a rationale for her candidacy.

Steve: I don't think they've done that yet.

I looked at who I felt comfortable with and who I knew.

Maybe I should have been more cautious, waited longer.

I was thinking about the Jersey City relationship.

The campaign has progressed.

There's been a lot of reasons to be concerned about the campaign in regards to making the case.

You know, there's a clear voice from the face -- base of the Democratic Party saying that they are not happy with what's happening in our politics throughout New Jersey.

I think if you don't listen to those people, eventually they will move away from the party establishment.

There's a big risk for everybody on that.

David: I'm running out of time.

>> you are running for governor.

Why hasn't the Jersey City Mayor been elected to that position?

Steve: it's a good question.

I met Paul Jordan who was in my office.

He ran in 1980.

We talk a lot about how the election impacted him.

It happen simultaneously.

Brent Scheller was a Republican in a tough year.

I think each election is their own sort of candidates.

I think I'm going to have a very compelling argument.

If there's ever an opportunity for a big city mayor to be elected, it's this election, 2025.

David: Dustin, you had a question.

>> yes, thanks.

You recently laid out a challenge to the other candidates for governor, basically saying that you will run off the line if they do the same.

Why would you running off the line impinging on what the other candidates to?

Steve: it's a fair question.

From my standpoint, I'm indifferent.

My plan is to support assembly candidates and county commissioners in every single county.

Create our own good government oriented activist team that isn't beholden to anybody.

Let the chips fall where they may.

The system is what the system is.

After this election, I'm going to make an announcement about where I'm going to position myself regardless.

But you know, it's an opportunity to draw a contrast.

For the most part, they are disingenuous when they say, abolish the line after their chairman of their chairman -- County said, let's create uniformity.

I'm going to call somebody out on that because it's not sincere.

That's what a campaign is about.

From my standpoint, I'm relatively indifferent.

You try to create a big tent, it's not going to change mice -- my candidacy.

David: I'm running out of time here.

I saw you at the Statehouse this week.

You were there to testify on the Oprah bill.

I don't know if you were able to stick around through that marathon.

What are your thoughts on it?

what's most objectionable in it to you?

Steve: I think transparency is important for government trust.

We deal with more requests in New Jersey than anybody in New Jersey.

It's cumbersome.

We are not perfect.

We've gone to court on a handful of cases that we think were unfair.

I recognize that it's important for the government trust.

What we've done in the last year, they watered down campaign finance.

They are watering down transparency.

It goes back to the fact that you are going to lose the grassroots which is important to the Democratic Party.

David: you did get a chance to talk about the affordable housing bill.

We should say that in my city, there's a large development almost as large as the Newport development.

30% affordable housing which is unprecedented.

Having said that, what is it about the affordable housing bill that you support or don't support?

Steve: we have a campaign platform that is more substantive than any campaign probably in the country for statewide office.

Detailed affordable housing plan.

How we are going to double production.

There's a lot of good things in the bill.

The most important thing they could change immediately is that they let cities like Hoboken not have an obligation.

That puts a lot of pressure on a lot of other municipalities.

It's important that Jersey City is included.

It sends the right message.

Places like Hoboken should be included.

It relieves pressure on other municipalities throughout the area as well.

David: get to see you.

Thanks for taking a few minutes with us.

Steve: I appreciate it.

David: panel, good to see you all.

Let's start with the party line.

There's a hearing Monday on the kick campaign suit to stop the line now.

This is an effort that appears to be gaining steam.

What are the prospects of it, do you think?

>> this is a tough one to gauge.

This has been a topic that's been debated for decades in New Jersey, especially the last 10 years.

People I speak to say that they haven't seen this much discussion.

It's possible a judge could say, some changes need to be done.

I don't know whether a judge will make that leap.

This has gotten the conversation started.

It seems like something is going to change.

I can't imagine everybody dropping this and moving on.

David: this is as close as we've ever been to a potential change to the system.

We just saw the Essex County chair come out for reforms of some sort.

Is the end nine for the line?

>> I agree with Brent.

It's difficult.

I disagree that this may see some action.

I can see a scenario where, if they get a favorable ruling at the county chairs, we will do nothing about this.

Yeah.

As we heard before, nobody has come out in strong defense of the line who oversees the line.

Therefore, why would they change it?

there's no sense for them to change it.

You have the party base that is Matt.

I don't know if that's a motivating factor for people, as some might think.

David: the party base has been met before.

Let's talk about this bill.

Started the week on a fast track.

By Thursday, it had gotten derailed.

We were in the hot place of covering something that directly affected our work.

That was weird.

The reality is, you can't do your job effectively if you can't get access to the info covered by it.

>> in matters for journalists.

I haven't covered it.

I'm lucky that our colleague has been doing such a good job with that.

But you know, it shouldn't be about us.

Yes, I mean we are critical consumer of that information.

But I keep coming back to, if you are paying for something, you should really be able to know where the money is going.

We have this argument with the state all the time.

Even now, clearly it needs some reforms.

There are people who were abusing it.

I would say probably in the corporate space mostly.

I think the sense that people are harassing their public officials by filing too many OPRA requests is silly.

Yes, there are people making money.

Maybe that needs to be addressed.

But there's also the problem that the law as it is now is grossly abused all the time and journalists and other requesters don't have the time, space, money, capacity to challenge every time we get jerked around on OPRA.

Nine times out of 10, you are jerked around.

Right?

am I wrong?

almost everything comes back with a small portion of what you asked for.

Usually long after the deadline.

It's been like this with past administrations.

This administration is worse I would argue.

They are all very nice but it's rare.

The governor's office is fabulous.

But it's rare that you find OPRA information easily.

The law is not working as it is.

Maybe it's time for change.

It sounds like the bill was just a mess.

David: Dustin, you had some big stories over the last few years.

Can you talk about how the documents you got through OPRA requests helped breaking news and make change?

>> well one example that comes to mind that would change under the current version of the reform bill was to exempt metadata that shows what the documents history is.

If you open up a Word document, you can see when it was creative -- created and modified.

That's how I learned some years ago that an agency had created job descriptions for people after they hired them, which was an egregious abuse of power and patronage.

It's basic stuff like that.

I had to put up a fight but I didn't have to sue anybody.

So often, you are fighting for some basic documents like this.

They have them on file.

It's part of the job.

They should be able to turn these things over.

So often, we have to fight and file complaints or go to court.

By the time you get these things that are readily available, it's too late.

You can't break that news or illuminate things that the public should know about.

So that's just one example that comes to my mind.

>> I would argue that it ends up becoming a waste of everybody's time often.

Because I've had many requests that were delayed so long that by the time I got the information, it wasn't newsworthy and I was in a position where it was budget season or something.

There was no way I could do the story.

Then I feel badly about wasting their time.

But if they had just agreed to respond with what the Lob requires, we wouldn't be having this issue.

David: you and Ted Sherman have done some great work over the past few years as well.

I think a lot of folks reading and watching the news may not news a big difference that OPRA requests makes for the public.

Right?

>> it's funny.

You have a lot of public sentiment that is so antigovernment lately.

You would think that they would want to open it up, bring some sunshine in.

A lot of people don't pay that granular attention to these kind of things.

So it's important that the things were obtained and we've learned something.

This is what makes our job more than stenographers.

We are not just repeating what's being told to us.

This Is Us digging deeper.

Curbing that will be a major loss just to -- not just a journalism but to readers who want to learn things.

David: a report about how the state handle the Covid crisis.

900 pages.

What jumped out at you from this report?

>> particularly the lack of planning.

The set -- the fact that there was a plan but no one knew about it.

Hadn't been used or drilled on.

That's really concerning.

I keep coming back to those press conferences that we all attended at which the governor repeatedly said, we are building this plane while we are flying it.

To be clear, the report also found that the state did relatively well.

I will get hate mail.

There are plenty of independent metrics that do suggest New Jersey's response was robust, bold, it saved lives without a doubt.

However, it could have been better.

A lot of things worked well because people tried hard and did the right thing.

As much as I want to believe that will happen, you can count on that.

David: 33,000 dead.

That's higher than the population of almost 400 towns in New Jersey.

Millions lost.

Small business still not back.

Learning loss.

Is this not a scandal?

>> what a loaded question to ask me.

[LAUGHTER] David: how about this?

why isn't this a scandal?

>> almost everything that you just pointed out was a scandal.

You can argue whether it was big enough.

The veterans home situation.

The governor, relative to his counterparts in other parts of the state, got off relatively easily in terms of scrutiny writ large.

He got a lot of scrutiny here in New Jersey but I think that that was a scandal.

It was a scandal sometimes drummed up, sometimes legitimate, about the school closures and business closures.

I think he faced some serious criticism for that.

In hindsight, he has acknowledged that some of that criticism was valid.

At the end of the day, his obituary will get favorable treatment in retrospect for all the reasons that were just laid out.

David: I have to get to some politics here.

Middlesex County convention.

The chairman goes out to the back room and makes the final decision on his own.

No press allowed.

What kind of democracy is that?

>> this whole Drake -- race has drawn a lot of attention, especially this County convention format.

Things that none of my colleagues would have ended up going to in the past, suddenly amount -- I met all these conventions.

People will say, this is the system we have.

Now people are coming out and saying, that's BS, this shouldn't be the system that we have.

There's a lot of things that we haven't really thought about in the past that we are now looking at because of this very heated, unexpectedly close U.S. Senate primary.

This race is showing the world, we are New Jersey, this is our politics.

>> I would argue, I have the same reaction to some of this as I due to the fact that, during the OPRA session votes, they had subcommittee members.

As journalists, we see it so frequently that sometimes -- I personally feel like I'm immune to getting worked up about it.

But in reality, if you are the public looking in, what do you mean you can take someone off a committee and put someone else in just again about?

-- game of vote?

it happens all the time.

I feel like if people had the time and energy to sit there and watch the C-SPAN version of New Jersey government, they would be appalled sometimes.

I'm not saying people is happening.

There's a lot of moments that make you cringe.

>> C-SPAN New Jersey.

That would be one hell of a television program.

>> sponsored by NJ Spotlight news.

David: time for our only in Jersey moments.

Have you got one?

>> yes.

Going back to the Covid report that the governor commissioned.

We've been very critical of the governor in the past.

We continue to be.

We have to give credit where it's due.

New Jersey is the only state to have undertaken this type of post motor -- postmortem.

The federal government hasn't done that.

That's a sad indictment of where we are.

As we know, we had this pandemic plan from 2015 or so.

If we don't try to learn from the lessons of this one, we won't be prepared for the next one.

There will be a next one.

I think New Jersey could be an example to other states to prepare for the next catastrophe.

David: Dustin is in a good mood today.

Brent, do you have one for us?

>> one of my passions is that I'm a big Oscar history junkie.

It was interesting to see Oppenheimer, partially filmed in New Jersey, win best picture.

Showing that the world that New Jersey is the universe and the rest of you just don't understand.

David: all roads lead to and through New Jersey.

Mine comes from Trenton.

Monday's marathon Senate committee meeting on OPRA ran almost eight hours.

Never mind that an assembly committee was hearing the testimony on the same topic at the same time so you had to pick watch -- which want to cover.

Fine.

But after hanging in there for seven hours, usually the chair will stick around for what we call a gaggle.

This week, the chairman ran away from the press which is bad enough if not unprecedented.

But the assembly committee chairman added insult to insult when, after the meeting, rather than answering questions around from reporters, berated the press for not covering the bill just the way he liked it, capping it off by calling us fake news.

We wanted to bring him on the air to speak his piece but his office told us now, he's not talking to reporters.

No need to file a OPRA request to find out what the a something Lehman really thinks.

Thanks for letting us know.

That's roundtable for this week.

Good to see you all.

Thanks all -- also to the mayor for joining us.

Find more stuff including web extras and full episodes when you scan the QR code on your screen.

I'm David Cruz.

For all the crew here in downtown Newark, things for lodging.

We will see you next week.

>> major funding for Reporters Roundtable with David Cruz is provided by RWJ Barnabas health, let's be healthy together.

Rowan University, educating New Jersey leaders, partnering with New Jersey businesses, transforming New Jersey's future.

Promotional support provided by New Jersey business magazine, the magazine of the New Jersey business and industry Association, reporting to executive and legislative leaders in all 21 counties of the Garden State since 1954.

And by Politico's New Jersey playbook, a topical newsletter on Garden State politics, online at Politico.com.

♪