Make solar investigation transparent

Sussex County taxpayers owe at lot to citizen activists like Harvey Roseff.  It was Harvey Roseff who briefed federal and state prosecutors last spring to provide them with valuable information concerning the Sussex solar scam.  Since then, Mr. Roseff has been insistent on transparency and accountability on the part of the Sussex County Freeholder Board  and those charged by the Board with both the oversight of the solar project and the investigation into how those responsible for it failed to live up to the promises they made.

Harvey Roseff enunciated his determination to see the project through by briefly becoming political, albeit in a non-partisan way, when he ran as an Independent for Freeholder last year. Defeated at the polls more by the lack of major party support than by any rejection of the principals he stands for, Mr. Roseff was back at his usual beat of activist and before the Freeholder Board, pestering them for answers.  He was there again Wednesday night, and was driven to distraction by the County Attorney's presentation of the oversight of the solar project.  The level of detail is a matter for serious concern, according to a source close to Mr. Roseff.

While some freeholders appear content to answer questions off-the-cuff, with speculative statements, and others claim that all the information the public needs to know is "on-line" somewhere, Watchdog strongly agrees with citizen activists like Harvey Roseff and John Snyder who want to hold an open public forum at which those responsible for the solar debacle could be asked the questions that the public -- the taxpayers -- want answered.  And while we understand that not everyone responsible will attend, certainly those still in the employment of the taxpayers of Sussex County should be expected to attend. 

Some politicians claim that such an open hearing would be difficult to organize and carry out.  We are certain that the New Jersey Herald could be relied upon to organize such an event, and that the Herald's attorney could maintain the flow of questions and answers.  Instead of pointing to documents "on-line" or off-the-cuff speculations, freeholders could assemble those documents, boil them down to some key points, present them to the public, and then turn the entire package over to the people for review and clarification.

From this it is hoped that we will finally have an answer to this key and  fundamental question posed over and over by Harvey Roseff:  "Why did Sussex County bail out SunLight (the private corporation behind the solar project), when the County won all the court cases up to the Supreme Court?"

It is clear that we need SunLight in the room to answer this question.  Let's make that happen.

Comments

[H Roseff]

Wednesday night, County Counsel Williams provided a lengthy, misdirected discussion of what the contractors have been doing regarding the solar buildout. The problem is that Sussex County is not contractually managing the solar program. Sussex guaranteed the MCIA/Sunlight bonds and now pays for the bonds due to their default. Our role is as the abused "insurance company". Therefore Counsel Williams' presentation should be focused on $ and cents, project budget status, financial timelines, all of which were pointedly avoided.

The Freeholders, the County Administrator and the County Counsel refused to also answer a simple follow-on question - who is managing the solar project. After all, who is responsible for the losses? Silence. Minutes of silence. Where is our responsible County management protecting the taxpayer?

Sussex County employed the Morris County Improvement Authority who contracted with a developer, Sunlight General. Yet these entities do not show up. I have not read of them attending presentations at Sparta BOE or elsewhere.

Freeholders seem satisfied that Sunlight has hired a "representative". Where is Sunlight????? Are they shoulderning losses for the buildout that was promised to be finished last December?

Freeholder Rose reports Jingoli, a politically well connected "rep", has no authority. He probably is right - all the losses for this fiasco are being assigned to the taxpayer and this year they soared from last year's $900,000 to $2,600,000 - which Freeholders have exercised their authority to stick to us, not the developer or the expert "Authority", MCIA.

Yet we had an iron clad fixed price contract. And Sunlight was found to be at fault by the arbitrator. Who is disregarding and diluting iron clad contracts?

So I ask you, if such a construction fiasco occurred when you wanted a new kitchen, would you demand a weekly sit down with the owner, or his secretary? And would they shoulder the losses for their own mistakes?

Why are the Freeholders hiding behind Counsel Williams?