Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privatization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee releases privatization bill after heavy opposition from school boards and local governments
Summary
The committee voted to release A919, which restricts privatization of public services without demonstrated non‑service‑reducing cost savings. School boards, counties, municipal associations and business groups opposed the bill, while labor and some unions supported it.
The Assembly Labor Committee released Assembly Bill A919 on Feb. 26 after testimony both opposing and supporting the measure. A919 would restrict privatization of public services unless a prospective private contractor demonstrates cost reductions that do not depend on increased charges to users, reduced services, or lowered workforce standards; it would also require sustained oversight and public disclosure for privatization contracts and specifies penalties for misrepresentation or malfeasance.
The bill bars political subdivisions from entering contracts of $500,000 or more, and public bodies including the State from entering contracts of $1,000,000 or more, to purchase services previously provided by agency employees except under specified circumstances, and exempts certain categories of contracts such as legal or engineering services, prevailing‑wage construction, some rehabilitation‑facility services and certain IT purchases.
Opponents told the committee the bill would limit flexibility, increase costs and drive bidders away. Jonathan Pushman of the New Jersey School Boards Association said the bill would effectively eliminate useful subcontracting tools and could force districts to cut programs or raise local taxes; he said the bill’s compensation guarantees for contractor employees (including pension parity and paid time off) are unrealistic for the private sector. Chris Semihuls of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association said the bill would “handcuff” local governments’ ability to seek affordability and efficiency and would likely increase taxes and costs.
County and municipal groups also opposed the measure. John Donadio of the New Jersey Association of Counties said the bill removes an important tool for controlling property taxes and criticized provisions requiring Office of the State Comptroller review of agreements; he suggested any state review should instead be handled by the Division of Local Government Services.
Labor and union‑aligned witnesses supported the bill. Eric Richards of the New Jersey AFL‑CIO said A919 requires a cost analysis that separates “good privatization from bad privatization” and insisted the bill would protect workers from wage and benefit erosion.
After testimony, committee members voted to release the bill; several members said they saw room for further conversation between sponsors and local government groups.
Clarifying details raised during testimony included the $500,000/$1,000,000 contract thresholds, the requirement that cost savings not be based on increased public charges or reduced services, and the bill’s listed exemptions for certain contract types. The committee recorded the motion to release A919 and moved the measure forward for further consideration.
