By Rod Hirsch

The project also embodies a classic win-win situation for a partnership forged between private enterprise and state government, with tangible economic and environmental benefits.

It is a symbiotic business and environmental relationship that benefits all partners – Schering-Plough, PPL, New Jersey and, in a  larger sense, the global community.

Power generated by the grid will help the pharmaceutical giant’s bottom line by reducing and helping to manage energy costs.

PPL will derive income from its investment, as Schering Plough is under contract with the company to purchase energy for the next 15 years.

“It’s good for the bottom line,” said Fred  Hassan, Schering-Plough chairman and CEO. “It’s also a good model for what we might see in this country as we work on energy conservation.”

The Summit solar system is expected to reduce greenhouse emissions by 3 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually. That is equal to:

                  • Removing 250 cars from the road

                  • Saving 150,000 gallons of gasoline

                  • Reducing oil imports by 3,000 barrels

                  • Not using 52,000 propane cylinders for home barbecues

                  • Planting 123 acres of pine forest

Throughout the state, in downtown shopping districts, train stations, college campuses, hospitals, shopping malls, casinos, industrial parks and corporate campuses, parking decks and other sprawling buildings with substantial rooftops offer more partnership opportunities for companies like PPL Renewable Energy, which has several other solar and wind-powered installations in New Jersey and other northeastern states.

Thanks in large part to installations similar to the Schering-Plough project, New Jersey is at the forefront of solar-power; only California has more.

“Here in the state of New Jersey we are number two in solar installations in the United States,” said Joseph Fiordaliso, a commissioner on the state Board of Public Utilities.

“We’re number seven in the world. Per square mile we have more solar installations than any state in the union.”

Added Gov. Jon Corzine, “New Jersey has been a national leader in solar energy programs, and this private sector project is a fine complement to our own initiatives as we work to secure and strengthen the state’s energy future.”

“Managing energy well is critical to our operations,” said Tom Pagliuco, energy director for Schering-Plough. “We are making our consumption of energy ‘greener’ by using renewable sources like solar and by reusing byproduct heat created in generating electricity on our sites."

“However, reducing overall energy consumption is our main goal. We believe the greenest kilowatt is the one not used.”

The BPU has enabled companies like PPL to more aggressively pursue solar installations by approving the transition of New Jersey’s solar program from an up-front rebate system to a commodity market based upon Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs).

“What the state has done is to create and support a market for renewable energy credits,” explained PPL’s John Steckel. “We’re not getting any money from the state for the Schering project, but what the state did do was create the market for SRECs so that the value of SRECs replaced the need for grants to build projects. The state provided a revenue stream that made the project economically feasible. That’s why there is as much solar in the state.”

Traditionally, solar had been funded by rebates and grants,” Pagliuco explained. “SRECs were a smaller piece of the puzzle. The state knew they couldn’t do it with rebates alone but to fund that level of activity were looking for a more market-driven approach. The state went with a solar REC market-driven approach in 2007. That’s when we were first approached by PPL about the project.”

Under the program, solar system owners earn SRECs for solar electricity production, which are registered and traded among electricity suppliers and other buyers within an established infrastructure. Electricity suppliers are required to buy the SRECs, or pay a Solar Alternative Compliance Payment in lieu of the purchase.

The SRECs allow renewable energy producers to raise cash. One SREC is equivalent to 1,000 kilowatt hours (KWh), or one megawatt-hour (MWh).

SRECs represent the renewable attributes (clean energy benefits) of solar power generated from a solar electric system, and they can be bought or sold separately from the electricity, thus providing the solar system owner with a source of revenue to help offset the cost of the system installation.

The BPU expects to phase out rebates by 2012 and rely on SREC-based financing to spur private investment and market development for solar technologies.

The Summit project will help push Schering-Plough closer to its goal of reducing energy consumption 10 percent at its facilities worldwide by 2013.

Schering-Plough’s ambitious global strategy has earned recognition from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In March, the EPA named Schering-Plough a 2009 ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year, which recognizes corporate efforts to use energy efficiently in facility operations and to integrate superior energy management into overall organizational strategy.

The EPA cited the company’s Global Energy Management Team, which develops global policies, programs and initiatives aimed at energy reductions.

Progress is already being made. Worldwide Schering-Plough managed a 3.7 percent reduction in energy usage last year aided by a web-based data management system that monitors and controls 16 million square feet of facility space worldwide.

“Three years ago Schering-Plough initiated a global strategic energy management initiative to build a foundation for an energy-efficient future,” Hassan said. “This project is a major achievement of that initiative. It represents the achievement of three objectives – savings, sustainability and societal benefit.”

But numbers are only part of the story. People and benefits are the real explanation behind the organization’s growth, according to Coyle.

Marcy Sasso, director of operations for the Ambulatory Surgical Center of Union County, “had heard rumblings about how good the Gateway Chamber was for awhile,” she said. Sasso looked into the dues-versus-benefits ratio and decided to enroll a few months ago.

“In times like these it only makes sense for businesses to band together to support one another,” Sasso said. She found the chamber to be a great place to network and also found other services she needs for her business.

“I saw some work done by Blu Hand Design Studio at the Chamber and I asked them to design a poster for us,” she said. Now Sasso is encouraging other healthcare businesses to  join the chamber.

Not every chamber of commerce is doing as well as the Gateway during the downturn.

“Membership is somewhat flat, which we consider a positive during this time,” said Kevin Friedlander, senior vice president of communications for the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.

While some businesses have cut back on marketing, including budgets for organization memberships, many others, both current and prospective members, understand the value of face-to-face networking chambers offer.

Mick Fleming, president of the American Chambers of Commerce Executives, a national association for chamber of commerce executives, says that trends in membership vary from region to region and even chamber to chamber. Chambers that give the most value for the dollar are retaining more members in hard times than those that give less, he said.

“It used to be that many companies joined the chamber just for the concept of civic rent,” Fleming said. “They felt an obligation to have that chamber sign in their window, just to support the organization in principal. But that has been changing in the last few years. Chambers must earn the respect of the members.”

Back to top>

Gran'ther Pendleton Returns

By Andy Gole   

Out of sight does not necessarily mean out of mind for vacationing executives, according to results from a recent business survey of marketing and advertising executives. The survey showed that 61 percent of those polled said they check in with work at least once a day while on break.

That compares to 47 percent in 2006 and 38 percent in 2001.

The national study was developed by The Creative Group, a specialized staffing service providing creative, advertising, marketing and web professionals on a project and full-time basis, and conducted by an independent research firm.

Advertising and marketing executives were asked, “How often do you check in with work while on vacation?”

“For better or worse, technology has made it easier for professionals to check in with the office from just about anywhere,” said Megan Slabinski, executive director of The Creative Group. “While periodic updates may provide peace of mind, being overly connected can detract from the benefits of time spent away from work.”

Slabinski said careful planning can help employees disengage while on holiday.

“Professionals should prepare for their vacation as if they won’t be available, rather than planning to check in,” she said. “Handing off projects ahead of time can help workers come back genuinely refreshed.”

Tips to help professionals make a clean break from the office include:

   • Put someone on point – Managers should select someone whose judgment they trust to make decisions in their absence. It’s important to give the point person the responsibility and authority to make judgment calls.

The tractor trailors pulling into the Occupational Center of Union County are a reflection of the down economy gripping the nation and the far-reaching impact the recession is having on many levels. In better times three trailors might offload at the Occupational Center, a vocational training facility for people with disabilities in Roselle that specializes in high-volume, light-hand assembly and packaging of consumer goods. These days, more often than not only one trailor pulls in.

That means less work for the 250 full- and part-time individuals employed by the Occupational Center. It also reflects a wider pool of ripples, according to Mark Lasky, the center’s president.

“The last couple months have been a bit of a struggle to fully employ our people,” Lasky said. “We have a tradition of full emplopyment. Now we don’t have a backlog of work. Our leads begin to say call us back next week.”

The Occupational Center’s clientele includes companies that supply the big box chains and price clubs. Lasky sees imports slowing, orders dropping and inventories not being replenished, resulting in less work coming through his doors.

“One company kept 30 or 40 (of our) people busy year-round,” he said. “Now they’re going under.”

Individuals with disabilities and special needs are among those in the work force being hardest hit by the recession, according to Lasky and other human services experts.

The federal Office of Disability Employment Policy reported that in April the unemployment rate for those with disabilities was 12.9 percent, compared with 8.4 percent for persons with no disability.

In New Jersey the Corzine administration is proposing to cut $3.8 million in funding for non-profit agencies that help train and place people with disabilities in the workforce, a reduction that will further hamper the efforts of organizations like the Occupational Center, according to Lasky.

In addition to its in-house vocational training, the Occupational Center also places candidates into the workplace and provides transitional support. At any time the center might have 40 to 50 individuals working on-site at companies, and Lasky is finding those placements harder to come by, as well.

“We’re having a little bit of a hard time finding entry-level positions,” he said. “Due to layoffs throughout the state there are more people qualified on paper.”

Down the road from the Occupational Center the Cerebral Palsy League also is feeling the pinch of a slower economy. The League operates adult services that include in-house work training and a vocational center.

“We operate within a larger community and many of the organizations that sub-contract with us are declining in activity,” said Louis Brigando, associate executive director. “Consequently less work is subcontracted to us.”

The Union County Educational Services Commission helps special needs individuals aged 16-21 transition into the work environment, placing students from its own five schools and four other Union County school districts with employers.

The commission places students in entry-level positions, attempting to find a good match that benefits both employer and employee.

“The whole idea of doing it in school is so when they come out as young adults they are trained for the work force,” said Jim Quinn, transition coordinator at the commission.

Quinn has seen a reduction of available spots for students as a result of the slow economy.

“I approach smaller businesses and they tell me they’ve laid off people and really don’t have any work,” Quinn said.

Hard times seem to hit individuals with disabilities and special needs hardest, experts agree.

“Persons with disabilities experience a curious paradox,” said Brigando. “Specifically, the benefits of good economic times are often attenuated in the face of higher competition and productivity demands. On the other hand, the consequences of stressed economic times are often accelerated, meaning that there are clearly fewer opportunities and major likelihood of reduction of support and services essential to maintaining viable employment.”

When the loss of work opportunity that comes with a tight economy is matched with cuts in state funding supporting non-profits working on behalf of people with disabilities and special needs, the repercussions of the single trailer at the Occupation Center are magnified for this sector of society.

“The safety net is going to begin to break down as more and more people look strictly at the dollars,” Lasky said.

As the safety net unravels, so does an integral part of the lives of people with disabilities and special needs.

“Working is essential to the quality of life,” Brigando said.

Inside Views

Last month, on April 15, tax day, I attended a presentation by Assemblyman Joe Cryan (D-20) on next year’s budget. It was an excellent presentation where Assemblyman Cryan outlined the efforts of the Corzine Administration to produce a rational budget in the middle of the worst recession in generations. The Assemblyman described it as a budget of sacrifice and cutback, furloughs and belt tightening.

So far so good.

Then came the kicker in his presentation. Even with all this sacrifice and belt tightening the state government needs more revenue, i.e. a tax increase. The Assemblyman said don’t worry, however, taxes would be increased for only the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $500,000 per year.

Cryan said there were fewer than 30,000 filers in this category, and they could well afford to ante up a bit more to keep the state solvent. And it had been shown by Governor McGreevy that the wealthiest don’t flee the state when their taxes are raised.

Assemblyman Cryan is also the chairman of the Democratic Party for the state, and what he said was great politics. First he appealed to all of us with the talk of cutbacks and sacrifice. Then he said that the pain of the tax increase would be limited to only 1 percent of the population. The other 99 percent of us get off scot-free.

Good politics this may be, but it is bad policy. Our politicians seem to forget that the annual variation in income is the greatest for that top 1 percent of earners. In other words, when times are good, these folks make a lot. This floods government coffers and leads to increased spending. Everyone is happy in these fat years.

In the lean years, however, the folks at the top make a lot less, and the government that is used to feasting on their largesse is suddenly put on a diet. Remember, nearly half of all state income tax revenue comes from this measly 1 percent of earners.

Thus a drop in income of just 10 percent for these earners results in a drop of 5 percent in state income tax revenue. Given that much of the income in this group is related to investment performance, it is easy to see why we are facing such a deep hole.

All we have to do is take a look at our leader, Governor Corzine. In 2007 the Governor had investment income of $11.8 million. His contribution to the state through income tax was just more than $1 million.

In 2008, however, the Governor lost nearly $3 million. That means that his state and federal taxes are zero. Here’s one of the richest guys in the state and he isn’t paying anything. A lot of the top 1 percenters are in this same fix. Investment revenues are down, bonuses are down and tax obligations are down.

On April 15 I mentioned to Assemblyman Cryan that I would be surprised if the tax collections that they expected for 2008 were accurate. I expected them to be way short.

And way short they are, with the shortfall now estimated to be $1.2 billion for this fiscal year. I would guess that this fact also will necessitate a new estimate of 2009 revenues. The economy is not recovering and large income growth in any sector certainly is not on the horizon.

So, what will they do? Will they see an even greater shortfall and raise taxes on the most volatile even more? If more tax revenue is needed, from a policy perspective, it would be much more sensible to raise taxes for a far greater number of people, maybe the top 50 percent of income earners.

We are, however, dealing with politicians. Why would we ever expect anything sensible to come out of them?

The New Jersey Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit an employer from looking at a job applicant’s credit history or finances when deciding whether or not to hire that individual.

What’s next, outlawing resumes for being intrusive and labeling typing tests as genetically biased?

Sometimes it seems as if New Jersey’s lawmakers want every business in the state to pull up stakes and head to Pennsylvania or Delaware. There can be no other explanation for the never=ending parade of suffocating regulations and laws that handcuff businesses in a state that consistently polls among the least-business friendly in the nation.

Now during the worst economic downturn in 60 years the newest kick in the gut to the state’s business community seeks to bar companies from considering an applicant’s history of paying their bills or their state of finances.

Specifically, A3804, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone (D-31), “Prohibits job discrimination on basis of credit history or financial status.”

Certainly any bill trumpeted as being anti-discriminatory sounds like a good idea. Certainly it is unfair for someone to be denied employment because through no fault of their own they have lost their job in a sour economy and have fallen behind in mortgage payments and perhaps medical bills.

Certainly that individual should be protected.

The problem with A3804 is that there already exists a law that does just that. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ensures that job applicants are protected from their credit histories being used unfairly in denying them employment.

Among other things, the FCRA states a job applicant:

• Must be told if any information in their credit report has been used against them to deny employment;

• Has the right to know what is in their file;

• Has the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information and have that information either corrected or deleted; and

• May seek damages from violators.

Most important, under the FCRA a job applicant must give consent for credit reports to be shared with existing or potential employers. Simply put, a job applicant can refuse to allow his or her credit history to be revealed.

Yet A3804 seeks to extend this protection so far as to make it impossible for a potential employer to even ask to consider this information, forcing them to hire blind and fill positions in which a poor credit history might indeed be relevant.

Few if any employers would use a credit history as the sole determinant for a decision to hire a candidate. Yet credit histories are relevant because they reflect how people handle their personal obligations.

An unemployed individual making good faith effort payments on their bills while seeking employment is viewed in a different light than a person with five maxed credit cards or a practicing doctor or lawyer living beyond their means.

In addition, the personal comportment that is often reflected in an individual’s credit history takes on importance at many different levels in the business environment. A bank teller in serious credit card debt is a liability no institution would be expected to carry. Yet a department head or administrative assistant with access to proprietary information valued by the competition is no less a threat to a company’s health. Is an individual with six-figure student loan debt a sound choice for a student loan management position at a college?

It is often noted that one bad employee can cost a business more money than a good employee can bring in. At a time when businesses throughout the state are fighting for survival, it is illogical to force employers to increase their risk of hiring bad employees when sufficient protection already exists for any job applicant.

Times are hard. Résumés are being padded and work histories are being forged. Honest job applicants are competing with those less so. When a trust-worthy individual loses out on a job to someone less scrupled, it is not only the honest applicant who suffers. The employer and its customers suffer, as well.

A personal credit history reflecting short-term difficulties in no way reflects dishonesty or desperation. However, long-term trends may indeed be indicative of more deeply rooted problems.

Job applicants deserve – and have – the right to ensure their credit histories are accurate and are being fairly used when evaluating them. Employers have a right to perform that evaluation.

Bill A3804 is a bad idea.

In 1994, when Congress last tried to reform our nation’s healthcare system, I was still a fairly new member of Congress serving out my third term in the House. Fast forward 15 years and I think it’s a useful exercise to ask, “What has changed?”

My colleagues and I from the 1994 battle are still here. We are a little bit older, but we are also a little bit wiser about how to approach health reform. We have the benefit of having a second chance and we have no intention of making the same mistakes that were made during the last go-round on health reform.

For example, in the House the three committees that have jurisdiction over health issues are working together in a unified fashion to develop a single proposal based on the key principles outlined by President Obama. This is a stark contrast from 1994 when the three committees were handed a legislative proposal from above in which they had little or no input and went to work on separate paths.

Even though it was early in his first term, President Clinton’s health reform plan came too late.

He had already spent significant political capital on other priorities, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, making it more difficult to get healthcare reform across the finish line.

Another major difference between today and the 1994 debate is how various stakeholders are positioning themselves now. Back then, lines were drawn and many organizations and interests took sides. The debate became polarized and politicized, including the use of campaign-style attack ads.

The attitudes and actions of everyone involved, including the business community, are completely different now. Industry representatives, such as America’s Health Insurance Plans and PhRMA, have teamed up with consumer groups like Families USA and AARP. Similarly, groups representing employers’ interests have joined forces with unions.

They all recognize the importance – even the imperative – of working together. They understand that we all have a vested interest in reforming health care. Businesses want healthy workers who improve productivity. Workers want a job that provides important benefits such as health coverage for themselves and their families.

For businesses large and small, health care costs are a growing expense. They have become a costly burden for some and they make it all but impossible for many small businesses to provide health care to their employees. The cost of coverage for businesses has increased by as much as 80 percent in the past five years alone. As a result, one in five small businesses in New Jersey can’t afford health insurance.

Businesses want workers who are in good health, who don’t lose time to illness and who don’t seek work elsewhere just to get health coverage. The “cost” to businesses of not providing coverage includes lost productivity.

The longer we debate this issue, the longer healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control and the longer Americans have to wait for access to affordable and quality health care coverage.

We need people who are willing to take their seats and stay firmly planted as we hammer out these details, especially on the most controversial aspects of health reform.

There are many other details that will need to be flushed out that require tough choices on the part of patients, providers, insurers, manufacturers and members of Congress. I’m hopeful that we all have learned from our previous mistakes and will continue to work together to finally reform our nation’s healthcare system. We literally can’t afford to let history repeat itself; we may not get a third chance to do it right.

By Sidney Blanchard

The writer and poet Karl Kraus once said, “In case of doubt, decide in favor of what is correct.”

The New Jersey Legislature is in the unique position of doing both what is fiscally wise – at a time when fiscal wisdom is nothing short of imperative – and also what is morally correct.

The Legislature is considering a bill to close five of the state’s seven institutions for people with developmental disabilities. The legislation, A3625/S2654 introduced by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, will more closely align New Jersey with the national trend of moving people with developmental disabilities out of institutions and into the community while also more efficiently allocating scarce budget dollars.

At a time when state leaders are desperate for solutions to help close the projected $1.2 billion budget deficit, this bill offers the Legislature the chance to save money while also doing what is correct.

First let’s look at the numbers. Nearly 3,000 New Jersey residents live in developmental centers at an annual cost of about $225,000 each, or two to three times the average cost of community living. By comparison, the cost for providing community housing for members of Community Access Unlimited (CAU) runs just $20,00 to $80,000 annually.

New Jersey’s seven developmental centers consume 31 percent of the $1.4 billion budget of the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) while serving less than 8 percent of the population served by the department. Closing five of the seven centers and moving those residents into community living will equate to a considerable cost saving for DDD and the state.

So clearly the numbers support closing New Jersey’s developmental centers. So does our moral obligation to do what is correct, to enable each member of society to live more fulfilling lives.

Community living offers people with developmental disabilities the opportunity to live in their own homes while receiving the supports they need. They contribute to the fabric of society, in many ways financial – by paying rent or mortgages and through income taxes when they work – and build self-esteem.

This year at Community Access Unlimited we are celebrating our 30th year of helping people with disabilities and at-risk youth. We began CAU in 1979 by successfully removing 20 people with developmental disabilities from institutional living and integrating them into the community. In our 30 years we have supported more than 7,000 individuals, helping 3,000 people with developmental disabilities to live independently or semi-independently.

While it has been immeasurably rewarding to provide this support for three decades, equally important is that our business model works. CAU was one of the first non-profit agencies in the nation to see the federal low-income housing tax credit as an opportunity to acquire property to be used for community housing for its members. Today, in addition to 55,000 square feet of commercial space, CAU owns more than 200 units of housing throughout Union County. Each year we assist more than 3,500 individuals with all kinds of disabilities.

Our core value and belief has always been that all people can be independent citizens participating in and contributing to the community. One of our first members, Adelaide, spent the first 22 years of her life in institutions and foster care before coming to CAU in 1979. Today she lives independently and is a member of our board of trustees, an officer in our self-advocacy arm, Helping Hands, and a proud partial owner of Jump Start, our self-advocacy consulting business.

A look at the dollars makes closing New Jersey’s developmental centers a fiscally sound decision.

A look at the thousands of people with disabilities whose lives have been improved through community living makes it a correct decision.