Should Sussex Freeholders be videotaped?

Should Sussex County Freeholder Board meetings be videotaped?  That's the debate that has turned the Freeholder Board on its head, with Freeholder boss George Graham, who once styled himself a "reformer" when he ran for office, now serving as the big impediment to county government transparency.  When Graham was on the outside he bellowed loudly about openness in government, but now that he runs the county government, he is anything but open.

In July, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for a law firm that he and then Freeholder Gail Phoebus identified as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $30 million.  Here is what Freeholder boss Graham said in 2015 about the lawyers he turned around and gave a no-bid contract to in 2016:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

This is what then Freeholder (now Assemblyperson) Gail Phoebus said:

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

So why -- under Freeholder boss Graham -- is Weinstein back?

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler?  People are beginning to ask that question, especially now that the solar investigation led by another law firm hand-picked by Freeholder boss Graham has cost taxpayers double the contract price with no product in sight. 

Graham is lobbying hard to get a second term as Freeholder Director.  Normally, the Freeholders take turns serving as Board Director, but Graham is looking to become a county political boss and the first step is to secure his position on the Board in perpetuity.  After which, Assemblyperson Phoebus will be free to give Graham a job as her chief of staff -- providing him with an annual six-figures in taxpayer money, plus health benefits and a pension -- which will establish Graham as the Nick Sacco of Sussex County.   

Hudson County... here we come!