Letters Messenger was shot, but what about the message? I was in attendance at the Edison Township Council special meeting that was held Jan. 4. The crowd at the meeting was so large that it was standing room only. Councilman Peter J. Barnes III was given the floor to make a passionate speech criticizing personal attacks made on him by consultants assisting Mayor Jun Choi. The other members of the council then proceeded to echo the statements made by Councilman Barnes. One key point that Councilman Barnes and the other council members made was that, despite our differences, we should be able to discuss issues in a civil manner and without personal attacks. I applaud those sentiments. For approximately two hours many members of the public also made similar comments, praising Councilman Barnes while criticizing the mayor and his consultants. As a refreshing change from the past administration, Mayor Choi was in attendance for the full meeting to take the criticism that was heaped upon him by the council and most of the public speakers. When it came time for the discussion of the budget issues identified by the mayor’s consultants as being serious, they raised multiple issues of concern. In the course of their presentation, they apologized to Councilman Barnes for offending him. Councilman Barnes was gracious enough to accept their apology. When the budget presentation was completed, council President Robert Diehl asked if anyone on the council had any questions about the presentation. To my surprise, there were no questions or follow-up discussion by any member of the council. They then quickly moved on to the next agenda item, which essentially resulted in the council unanimously agreeing to fire the consultant to the mayor that had offended Councilman Barnes. At that point the meeting was adjourned to large applause from the audience. Although the council may have been justified in pulling back the contract for the consultant to the mayor, I was there for the budget update item on the agenda. The council was quick to shoot the messenger, but what about the message? The council called the meeting. The budget was just recently passed by them. Why were they not prepared to discuss or even ask questions regarding the issues raised? When does the council intend to address those serious issues? The citizens of Edison want the mayor and the council to get together and provide us with an accurate, impartial picture of our budget situation. Reuven Kaswin Edison Residents wanted answers; now they have them It has occurred to me that Edison is one big contradiction. I feel this way because people are mad when politicians don’t give us any answers to our questions, but we become enraged when they give us all the straight answers, and open up their findings to us. I am an Edison resident and pretty disgusted with the whole Jun Choi controversy. From day one, when he won the primaries, people have made racist, rude shots at Mr. Choi. All Mr. Choi ever wanted was to see his town in better shape. Let’s face it. The way the past administration left this town, it’s going to take a long time to clean up the mess. I am left to question a few things. My number one question is why did our past chief of police Costello leave that position and say he could not work with the new administration? Is the reason because these two administrations will be so very different? And that possibly this mayor will improve the quality of life in our town? My next question is for anyone who ever called a Democrat politician spineless and dirty. Yes, Democrats have a bad history of doing some dirty work, and we normally never get straight answers. But why do people get so upset when a new Democrat comes in and puts everything on the table? He gave you the news in the open, and when Mr. Choi won the primaries he promised an open government. I don’t get how people in this town think. We wanted answers to where money in this town has gone, and now we have some answers. I may not know a lot about politics; I try and learn but I can’t learn with these simple questions not being answered. Yes, Mr. Choi was wrong to speak about Mr. Barnes behind his back. He should have asked the councilman to be at the press conference. Yes, Mr. Choi makes a Democrat look bad, but he did apologize for what he said at a town council meeting. Some people can believe he was sincerely sorry, or the nonsupporters can go on their way, make it a day and say he’s lying. But please, for the sake of our town, give the man a chance. You wanted answers, you got them. People make mistakes, people take leaps and ask questions, but how does it feel when we are wrong and screamed at? At the Jan. 4 town council meeting, residents were acting like horrible teachers who humiliated Jun Choi in front of a class. I was not impressed by their uncivilized behavior and loyalty to this town. Kate Szabo Edison Time to regulate bounty hunters in New Jersey When bounty hunters illegally broke down the apartment door of Brenda Livingston and Darryl Hardee, two Trenton residents, in search of a fugitive two weeks ago, it set off a reinvigorated debate about the need for greater regulation of those who are hired as bounty hunters. To make matters worse, it was reported that the intruders also burglarized the home by taking two rings and $750 in cash. So, while pop culture glamorizes the vigilante justice meted out on popular reality television shows like “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” it fails to convey the inherent dangers that these pseudo-law enforcement agents pose to innocent civilians. The truth is, in New Jersey they are unlicensed, unsupervised and undisciplined. They are a force unto themselves, and New Jersey’s recent experiences with bounty hunters operating outside the law should advance the need for reform. Take the case of Claudia Santana, a 37-year-old Rutherford woman, who in June was abducted by two Pennsylvania bounty hunters, placed in handcuffs, thrown in the back of a van and driven 35 miles to the Dover police station, only to find out they had arrested the wrong woman. These bounty hunters were also illegally carrying unlicensed guns. Were these recent indiscretions two isolated incidents? Hardly. In the last few years, the number of run-ins between overzealous bounty hunters and innocent civilians, both in New Jersey as well as the rest of the country, has escalated steadily to the point where it can no longer be ignored. So, why are these bounty hunters able to operate at the fringes or, in many instances, outside the law? Regrettably, bounty hunters hide behind an 1872 Supreme Court decision that allows them to chase down fugitives by any means necessary, including crossing state lines and illegally entering private homes. Sure, back in the 19th century when Ulysses S. Grant was president, and four years before Gen. George Armstrong Custer and the 7th Cavalry were being annihilated on the remote section of the Montana Territory, the application of this ruling may have had some merit. But our law enforcement system has evolved considerably since that time. Yet, bounty hunters still operate in the dark ages of the 19th century. The ultimate price for this inaction was paid in 1997 when Arizona bounty hunters killed two innocent people when they mistook the victims for fugitives. While most cases do not end in death, there is no doubt that these latest infractions are symptomatic of a widespread problem — bounty hunters operate on murky legal grounds, often times with impunity. In fact, the problem has become so egregious that New Jersey’s attorney general, Peter Harvey, has supported legislation to license bounty hunters operating in New Jersey. Viewed from the perspective of the top law enforcement official in the state, it is obvious that modern day bounty hunters bear little resemblance to police officers as they possess no formal law-enforcement training, nor are they governed or regulated by any New Jersey state statutes. They are a legislative enigma. So is there still a need for bounty hunters to exist at all? Yes, but only if properly regulated as set forth by the New Jersey State Police. More precisely, what role should bounty hunters play within the law enforcement community? Each year, thousands of criminal defendants post bail and are released from jail, yet flee from prosecution. Overwhelmed with their other duties, local police forces do not have the time or resources to spend tracking down these fugitives. Therefore, bail bond companies hire civilians, usually bounty hunters, to retrieve these bail jumpers. I acknowledge that bounty hunters can serve a useful purpose. In fact, it is estimated that 90 percent of bail jumpers are subsequently arrested and taken into custody, presumably in most instances by bounty hunters — although no official number is available because bounty hunters are not required to register with the state of New Jersey. In fairness, bounty hunters need clear definitions as to their authority, formal law enforcement training, set criteria for licensing, and state police oversight. Along these lines, I have proposed legislation, A-3828, which will be considered in December and would require all bounty hunters to be licensed by the New Jersey State Police, have five years of law enforcement training, and undergo a criminal background check — the same requirements necessary to serve as a private detective in New Jersey. In addition, it would also give bounty hunters credibility with local law enforcement and de-stigmatize the perception that they are small time vigilantes. Modern television shows may glamorize the role of “Dog” on the small screen, but truth be told, if this sensible legislation passes, and Dog enters New Jersey in search of a fugitive without the necessary licensing and training, it will be Dog who is arrested. Peter J. Barnes Jr. assemblyman D-18th District Resident suggests new state motto The extension to vote for the New Jersey motto comes at a perfect time for residents of Edison. Our new mayor has succeeded in making Edison part of the New Jersey laughingstock with his pay-to-play buddies and their attacks on public servants. I propose the addition of “New Jersey — You Get What You Pay For.” After Chris Christie gets done with the corruption in the state, we can change it to “New Jersey — You Get What You Deserve.” Robert A. Brown Edison