Some questions for the “transparency” committee…

With the fevered effort of a dog chasing its own tail, a so-called “transparency” committee (made up of Freeholder boss George Graham and his “entourage” to watch over a Freeholder Board dominated by Graham) has predictably produced a document claiming that said Freeholder Board is “transparent”.  Hey, they do this kind of crap in third world countries – appointing yourself and your cronies to keep watch on yourself and your cronies:

“The committee to watch the committee will be made up of members of the committee.”

Well, Sussex County isn’t the third world nation of Grahamistan.  Rather than spend any more tax dollars patting themselves on the back, they need to go back and answer the BIG question about the recent pissing away of $514,000 of taxpayers’ money and their continued failure to come up with a plan and to stop running out the clock on taking legal action against those who perpetrated the solar scam.

What is the BIG question?

Well, the truth is there are a number of BIG questions regarding this debacle.  But one really BIG, nagging question is the one that has been asked again and again by Byram Councilman Harvey Roseff:  Who selected Boxer?  How was the contract negotiated?  And was the Boxer report itself a cover-up of Boxer’s office's role in the solar scam?

Remember the Freeholder Board’s reliance on the report by New York City lawyer Matthew Boxer to assign blame and set a legal course of action.  It will be remembered that Boxer himself was a player in the scandal, his office having signed-off on the solar project and so ensuring that it would move forward with the State’s seal of approval.  We all know the result:  Suffer the taxpayers.

For those of you for whom this is a bit foggy, let’s go through it all, once again.  In February 2011, the Sussex County Freeholder Board authorized a shared services agreement with the Morris County Improvement Authority (MCIA) to implement the solar project.  In July 2011, the project was sent to the Office of the State Comptroller for review. At the time, Matthew Boxer was the State Comptroller and responsible for that office.  After reviewing all the project documents, the following month (August 2011), the project was given the okay by the Office of the State Comptroller. Based on this review, the Sussex County Freeholders went forward with the project.  

Later, in January 2016, Matthew Boxer would be given a no-bid contract to review the solar project that his office had signed-off on in August 2011.  How that contract came to be awarded to Mr. Boxer remains a mystery.

If you read Matthew Boxer's 62-page report on the solar scandal – which cost Sussex County taxpayers $500,000 ($8,064 per page) – he never once mentions the role of his former office, the Office of the State Comptroller, in the approval process.  The word "comptroller" doesn't appear in his report, even once, despite the central role it played in the scandal and in spite of the fact that Matthew Boxer ran the office when it was responsible for reviewing the solar contract.

In his 62-page report, Mr. Boxer lays bare his office's misfeasance:

"The ability of the County to intercede or assist in the dispute between Sunlight and PPM was further hindered by the County’s lack of legal standing in the operative contract documents.  For example, the County had no contract with 

Sunlight, only the MCIA did.  The County was even further removed contractually from PPM; neither the County nor the MCIA had a contract with PPM, only Sunlight did... In short, the County was underwriting the Solar Project, but was not in a position to affect it or protect it.

Typically, when a contractor on a public construction project is unable or unwilling, for financial reasons or otherwise, to complete the project, the public entity may resort to the performance bond that has been posted by the contractor.  A performance bond is a commitment made by an insurance company or bank, known as a 'surety,' to compensate the contracting entity financially or otherwise carry out the completion of the project in cases where the contractor defaults on its obligations...   In the case of the Solar Project, a surety bond was posted that contained a commitment from a well-known, national insurance company.  While the bond technically complied with legal requirements, the terms of the specific bond that was posted made the County’s invocation of the bond difficult, if not impossible.  First, despite the massive financial commitment the County had made on this project, the County was not listed as a beneficiary (known as the 'obligee') on the bond.  Instead, the MCIA and a Sunlight-related entity were listed as the obligees.  Thus, the County had no explicit standing to invoke the bond or to seek compensation under the bond.  It was reliant in this regard on the MCIA."  

In August 2011, Matthew Boxer's office (the Office of the State Comptroller) approved the terms of the 196-page contract. Below is a the table of contents of the contract forwarded to and approved by the Office of the State Comptroller:

THE MORRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

MORRIS COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM 

(COUNTY OF SUSSEX PROGRAM), SERIES 2011

__________________

______

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

For a Developer of Photovoltaic Systems with respect to certain Local Government Facilities in the County of Sussex, New Jersey

Dated [Post Date] 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1          Notice of RFP  .................................................................................................... E1-1

Exhibit 2          Respondent Checklist ........................................................................................ E2-1

Exhibit 3          Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program .................................................... E3-1

ARTICLE I

INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, FINANCING OPTIONS

AND DEFINITIONS

Section 1.1      Introduction and Overview .................................................................................... 1

Section 1.2      Financing Options ................................................................................................... 9

Section 1.3      Authority Financing Option .................................................................................... 9

Section 1.4      Company Services Under the Authority Financing Option .................................. 21

Section 1.5      Company Financing Option .................................................................................. 21

Section 1.6      Company Services Under the Company Financing Option................................... 23

Section 1.7      Material Changes to RFP....................................................................................... 24

Section 1.8      Definitions............................................................................................................ 24

ARTICLE II

INITIAL ACTION BY RESPONDENTS

Section 2.1      RFP........................................................................................................................ 28

Section 2.2      Authority Contact Persons ................................................................................... 28

Section 2.3      Respondent Registration ...................................................................................... 29

ARTICLE III

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

Section 3.1      RFP and Notice of RFP .......................................................................................... 30

Section 3.2      Pre-Proposal Submission Meeting........................................................................ 30

Section 3.3      Site Tours of Local Unit Facilities .......................................................................... 30

Section 3.4      Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program ....................................................... 32

ARTICLE IV

CERTAIN INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSALS

Section 4.1      Pricing and Other Terms of Forms A-1-a and A-1-b ............................................. 34

Section 4.2      Renewable Energy Projects .................................................................................. 45

Section 4.3      Reserved............................................................................................................... 45

ARTICLE V

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Section 5.1      Substantive Requirements for Proposals ............................................................. 46

Section 5.2      Permitted Inclusions in Proposals ........................................................................ 48

Section 5.3      Proposals Governed by Applicable Law ............................................................... 49

Section 5.4      Procedural Requirements and Other Matters for Proposals ............................... 50

Section 5.5      Clarification of Proposals ...................................................................................... 54

Section 5.6      No Tax Advice Offered .......................................................................................... 55

ARTICLE VI

AWARD TO SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT

Section 6.1      Submitted Proposals ............................................................................................. 56

Section 6.2      Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 56

Section 6.3      Basis of Award ...................................................................................................... 58

Section 6.4      Rejection of Proposals........................................................................................... 59

Section 6.5      Conditional Award................................................................................................. 59

ARTICLE VII

CERTAIN GENERAL MATTERS

Section 7.1      Exhibit 2  Checklist ............................................................................................... 60

Section 7.2      Proposal and Construction Bonding ..................................................................... 61

Section 7.3      Insurance.............................................................................................................. 65

Section 7.4      Indemnification.................................................................................................... 66

Section 7.5      Labor...................................................................................................................... 66

Section 7.6      Licenses and Laws.................................................................................................. 71

Section 7.7      Background Check…………………………………………………………….....72

APPENDICES

Appendix A     Attach Forms of Program Documents and RFP Authorizing Resolution............. A-1

      Company Documents:

Appendix A-1              PPA............................................................................................ A-1-1

Appendix A-2              Company Lease Agreement..................................................... A-2-1

Appendix A-3              Company Continuing Disclosure Agreement........................... A-3-1

Appendix A-4              Company Pledge Agreement.................................................... A-4-1

Appendix A-5              Form of Master Local Unit License Agreement........................ A-5-1

      Other Program Documents:

Appendix A-6              Authority Bond Resolution....................................................... A-6-1

Appendix A-7              County Guaranty Agreement................................................... A-7-1

      Authority RFP Authorizing Resolution:

Appendix A-8              Authority Resolution adopted July 20, 2011 

            ........... Authorizing Issuance of RFP..................................................... A-8-1

Appendix B     Description of Projects......................................................................................... B-1

Appendix B-1              Renewable Energy Projects...................................................... B-1-1

                                          Conceptual Site Plans

                                          Site Roof Warranty Information

Appendix B-2              Reserved (No Capital Improvement Projects).......................... B-2-1

Appendix B-3              Estimated Load Data by Local Unit Facility............................... B-3-1

Appendix C     Scope of Work and Technical Specifications ..................................................... C-1

Appendix D     Forms to be Included in Exhibit A of Proposals................................................. D-1

Appendix D-A-1-a[i]       Proposal Form A-1-a;Authority Financing 

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet................................................ D-A-1-A-1

Appendix D-A-1-b[ii]      Proposal Form A-1-b; Company Financing 

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet …………………………….D-A-2-B-1

Appendix D-A-2          Proposal Form A-2; Respondent Information / 

                                    Cover Letter Form…………………………………………D-A-2-1

Appendix D-A-3          Proposal Form A-3; Consent of Surety and Surety Form..... D-A-3-1

Appendix D-A-4[iii]        Proposal Form A-4; Agreement for Proposal Security 

                                    In Lieu of Proposal Bond....................................................... D-A-4-1

Appendix D-A-5[iv]        Proposal Form A-5; Proposal Bond....................................... D-A-5-1

Appendix D-A-6          Proposal Form A-6; Ownership Disclosure Statement......... D-A-6-2

Appendix D-A-7          Proposal Form A-7; Non-Collusion Affidavit......................... D-A-7-1

Appendix D-A-8          Proposal Form A-8; Consent to Investigation....................... D-A-8-1

Appendix D-A-9          Proposal Form A-9; Statement of Respondent’s 

                                    Qualifications........................................................................ D-A-9-1

Appendix D-A-10        Proposal Form A-10; Acknowledgement of 

                                    Receipt of Addenda (if any)................................................ D-A-10-1

Appendix D-A-11        Proposal Form A-11; Sealed Proposal Checklist 

                                    (See Exhibit 2)..................................................................... D-A-11-1

Appendix D-A-12[v]       Proposal Form A-12; Authorization for Background 

                                    Check................................................................................... D-A-12-1

Appendix E     Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule (including sources and uses)............. E-1

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Basic Lease Payment Schedule, allocable to Series 2011 Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Sources and Uses, Series 2011 Bonds

Appendix F     County Deficiency Option..................................................................................... F-1

                              Option F-1

                              Option F-2

In light of his office's blatant failures, Matthew Boxer should be asked the following question: Do you believe that the Office of the State Comptroller let down the taxpayers of Sussex County?

In April 2015, the Office of the State Comptroller turned down Sussex County's request to review the solar project.  No official reason was ever provided.  However, there is an "unofficial" explanation provided in a May 26, 2015, memo from the MCIA.  It goes as follows:

"The County is still awaiting a written letter from the Office of the State Comptroller, as a follow up to the phone conference... on April 27, 2015.  In the absence of the written response, and as a reminder, the State representatives (OSC) advised the County that it undertook an internal review of the Solar II Program and conducted its own analysis and evaluation of the Solar II Program.  Following this review process, the Comptroller's Office concluded that, based upon the information... forwarded to them, it was not going to pursue a further review of the Solar II Program."

It seems the Office of the State Comptroller had conducted a review of the solar project it had signed-off on, but was unwilling to share said review. The memo continued:

"The Comptroller's Office noted several factors in its post-review decision not to review the matter further:

a. Noting that the Solar Programs and original agreements were a local policy decision, approved by the County Freeholders, and;

b. That in the view of the Comptroller's Office, both the change in the SREC Market, as well as the legal dispute between the developer and the contractor (SunLight/MasTec) contributed to the Solar II Program not proceeding as originally expected."

A "post-review decision not to review the matter...”  Mr. Boxer needs to explain why.

The Office of the State Comptroller's refusal to share the review that they had already conducted or to take that review further was a loss to the taxpayers of Sussex County, but a boon to former State Comptroller Matthew Boxer, who was now being touted as the onlyman to do a review that was to be paid for by fresh taxpayer's money.

In January 2016 a new Freeholder Board in Sussex County – now controlled by the very same individuals who had been for months advocating for the selection of Matthew Boxer as the onlyman to review the solar project – handed Matthew Boxer a contract for $500,000 to conduct said review.

The manner in which this contract was provided to Mr. Boxer was unusual, and remains unexplained to this day.  In a letter, dated January 19, 2016, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to Mr. Boxer's firm inquiring how Boxer obtained the contract.  Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Mr. Boxer,

On New Years’ Eve, Dec 31, 2015, I received a phone call, about 5:00 PM, informing me that a resolution had been submitted to the Sussex County Clerk of the Board regarding an agreement with Lowenstein Sandler, LLC to provide professional services to conduct a review of the facts and circumstances involved in the Sussex County Renewable Energy Program.

This was the first time I had any knowledge of this negotiation and agreement.

I spoke to our Freeholder Director, the other sitting Freeholders, our County Administrator, our County Council, our Clerk of the Board, our County Treasurer, our Director of the Department of Central and Shared Services, our Purchasing Agent, and our assistant purchasing agent. 

None of these individuals, except Freeholder George Graham, admitted to having any knowledge of these negotiations, conversations, meetings or agreements with your law firm before 5:00 PM on New Years’ Eve 2015. 

...I believe that the governing body has had no part in negotiating an agreement with your firm.

 I would like to know, and now ask, who represented Sussex County in these negotiations, especially the negotiation of the 'blended' hourly rate and the understanding that the Board of Chosen Freeholders has provided that fees are not to exceed $500,000.00? "

To this day, this gentleman – who has since retired from the Freeholder Board – has never received the courtesy of a reply.  Why not? And note that, at the time, this Freeholder – as a member of the Board – was Mr. Boxer's client.  What fears would lead Mr. Boxer to ignore a perfectly legitimate request by his client?

Sussex County taxpayers lost over $20 million in the solar scandal.  Then they paid another half million dollars on a 62-page report authored by one of key players in the scandal – and nobody can say how this lawyer got hired!  Now that report is going to be used as the roadmap for future legal action by Sussex County that could cost taxpayers millions more in legal bills (and maybe let the culprits off the hook).

Councilman Roseff is right to raise questions.  These are basic questions that need to be answered… before any more taxpayers’ money is spent. 

---

[i]Required if Proposal utilizes Authority Financing Option.

[ii]Required if Proposal utilizes Company Financing Option.

[iii]Provide EITHER (i) Form A-4 (Proposal Funds) or (ii) Form A-5 (Proposal Bond); found in Appendices D-A-4 or D-A-5, as applicable.  See Section 7.2(a) of RFP.

[iv]See prior footnote.

[v]Provided by Successful Bidder only.  To be supplied upon award of Successful Bidder.

The Hugin campaign would have done better in a Democrat primary.

Bob Hugin is a great guy.  Really.  He’s a good and decent man.  It was unfortunate that he found himself in a Republican primary… this year.  The fact that he persevered with such confidence and grace makes him a heroic, somewhat tragic, figure.  

Bob Hugin could have run in the Democrat primary.  $35 million… against Bob Menendez?  Hugin had the issues right for a Democrat primary… and the media wouldn’t have pounced on a Democrat Bob Hugin the way they did a Republican Bob Hugin.  The media love rich members of the One Percent when they are Democrats (it is a capital sin when you are a Republican)… they love woke, right-on pharma folk of the proper political affiliation.  They would have forgiven him everything.

But Bob ran as a Republican, and he ran this year.  A year when the media he wanted to appeal to was working to nationalize the election – to make it about Trump.  That media ended up vouching for Bob Menendez, despite having formerly called for his resignation. That media still cuts it with the people who Bob Hugin wanted to convince:  Democrats and liberal-leaners.   

Rather than shutting down Menendez, Hugin’s attacks were used by the media as evidence that he – Bob Hugin – was a “bad” man.  Of course, this only works with those who are open to receiving a message from the likes of Tom Moran and MSNBC.  Unfortunately, they were precisely the voters that the Hugin campaign was aimed at. 

Can we put aside the myth that Republican voters will come out no matter what, and dutifully vote Republican?  That myth should have finally, once and for all, been discarded after the low turnout Assembly races in 2015, when Republicans AGAIN lost seats in the Legislature and were AGAIN provided with irrelevant excuses for having done so. 

Oh the excuses!  One year it is Christie’s fault, the next it is Trump’s, and in between, the dog ate it!  New Jersey Republicans should set up their own public relations firm specializing in excuse-making.  Excuses aside, New Jersey’s GOP establishment should understand that the days of Republicans “holding their noses” and voting are over.

Republican voters are like anyone else.  Ignore them, say you are embarrassed to be with them, that you are “different” from them… and they will reward you in kind.  As an experiment, try some of that language next time you are in public with your wife and her family (or your husband and his).  Invite them out to a restaurant, then tell the host:  “I’m a different kind of member of this family, I’m not really one of them… They are a little, umm… backward.”  And say it so they hear it.  Say it loud, like ten million dollars’ worth of loud, and see how they like it.  Go ahead, try it.  Get back to us on it.

And that’s what the whole Hugin campaign was based on, wasn’t it?

“I’m a different kind of Republican.”  They are a little backward, a little off, but I’m with it.  I am a cool Republican.  Except that there are no “cool” Republicans.  Not in the minds of the media.  They only thought John McCain was cool when he was pissing on Bush.  The moment it became about him and Obama, John McCain became a troglodyte in the minds of the media.  After the dust settled, he became cool again, especially when pissing on other Republicans… especially when pissing on Trump.  But when he needed them, the media screwed John McCain.  So why even bother with them?

President Ronald Reagan understood the media (and they were a lot more condensed, more centralized, and a lot stronger back then).  That’s why he talked past them – to the people.  He didn’t give a damn about their approval.  He fed them the diet he wanted them to eat and even when they shit it out it contained the kernels of his message.  Reagan wasn’t afraid to be a Republican and to explain what that meant.  He had a message that he tested and honed by human contact – by speaking to people, engaging them, listening for the examples that would be used in his speeches, turning them on to his way of thinking, building a movement of ideas and about issues that mattered to people.

How many Republicans today, in New Jersey, can explain why they are Republicans or what Republicanism is?  At the big Republican show put on by the NJGOP last spring in Atlantic City, two professional Republican organizers up from Washington, DC, posed the same questions to attendees.  Not only was there no apparent theme or connectivity between the responses, even the organizers couldn’t adequately provide reasons or an explanation as to why they were there in the first place.  It was kind of sad.

What that confab did showcase, however, is the top-down meddling that has become the hallmark of the establishment in New Jersey, with a congressional candidate in a contested primary receiving top billing as the event’s featured speaker.  Yes, there was resource-draining meddling in districts 2, 5, and 11 – in an effort to promote candidates who would fit seamlessly with the statewide message being promoted by the campaign of Bob Hugin.

Instead of building a grassroots coalition of Republicans and reformers – of the kind Ralph Nader wrote about in his book, Unstoppable – the Hugin campaign  actually determined that their best chance lay in targeting “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents.  But these are the very same voters open to arguments from left-leaning media like CNN, MSNBC, NJ.com, and the Bergen Record.  So when the Hugin campaign pushed a relentlessly negative message about Menendez, those “independent arbiters” pushed back and were listened to. 

This allowed the Menendez campaign to focus on making the link between Hugin and Trump – which the media backed up.  The more the media pressed, the more Hugin denied Trump, the more he suppressed his own base.  Meanwhile, the Hugin campaign went right on churning out GOTV communications and efforts to turn out those “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents who had by now been convinced by the media that Hugin was a “bad” man who was lying about Menendez.  Gagged and gagged again.

In the days and weeks ahead we will be taking a proper, in depth, examination of the Republican operation in the Garden State.  It will be a necessary, warts and all, detailed review.  So stay tuned.

For now, we will leave you with this: 

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”  - Winston Churchill

Grana, Matteson, Hamilton camp opposes transparency/continues anti-religion rant

Time out!  

Stop arguing that property taxpayers who happen to have a connection to Catholic education cannot serve on a public school board.

That’s the argument being made by supporters of Jennifer Grana, Kate Matteson, and Jennifer Hamilton.  It seems to be a theme being pushed by their campaign for seats on the Sparta Board of Education.  

After someone with the campaign of Grana-Matteson-Hamilton sent in a letter attacking opponents Karen Scott and Chris Arnold for their service as music teachers at Pope John High School, we gave candidates Jennifer Grana, Kate Matteson, and Jennifer Hamilton the opportunity to correct what we saw as an illogical and bigoted position. We would have happily published their point of view, just to give them the opportunity to explain why they thought Catholics should not be allowed to serve on the Sparta School Board.

Instead, another supporter with the campaign doubled down with another letter that brought up the connection with Pope John High School.  Will these bigots never stop? 

This new letter-writer made the false claim that the Scott-Arnold-Serrano team she opposes sent out a mailer. We’ve seen the mailer and it is clear who sent it out.  Either the letter writer is a liar or semi-literate.   

She also must know that the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of The Constitution of the United States of America takes precedence over EVERYTHING and ANYTHING else.  So long as the school board has the power to impose a property tax on people and collect that tax, those taxpayers have the UNDISPUTED RIGHT to comment on those who are running for election to that school board.  

When you place your name on the ballot for school board, you acknowledge that along with the POWER to raise people’s property taxes comes the acceptance that you, as a candidate for public office, will come under scrutiny.  That your past actions, statements, and positions as a candidate for other elected offices is fair and proper areas of scrutiny and review. TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE FLIES IN THE FACE OF TRANSPARENCY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT! 

If you don’t want such scrutiny, don’t seek the power to tax your fellow human beings. 

How many families have been crushed – forced into foreclosure and homelessness – because the people elected to the school board did not undergo the necessary scrutiny and only too late revealed themselves to have little care for the concerns of taxpayers?  Never again!

Get used to scrutiny.  

Democrat school board candidates in Sparta object to opponents’ religious affiliation

There has been much to be proud of in the conduct of most county elections this year.  The county-wide offices offer the most diverse line-up in memory and yet you wouldn’t know it by the way they have campaigned.  The candidates for Freeholder and Surrogate have ignored the personal differences of their opponents and instead have kept strictly to the issues.  For this they should be applauded… both Democrats and Republicans. 

Not so for one of the team of candidates running for School Board in Sparta.  A supporter of the team of Jen Grana, Kate Matteson and Jen Hamilton attacked members of the opposing team of Karen Scott, Chris Arnold, and Vanessa Serrano for their connection to Roman Catholic education. 

Matteson and Hamilton were Democrat candidates for the Legislature last year, so they have the experience to know better.  Their supporter targeted Karen Scott and Chris Arnold in a letter published in a county newspaper, writing that because they taught at Pope John High School, a Roman Catholic school, Sparta should not have them on a public school board.

This is a narrow and, might we say, bigoted argument.  We hope that the team of Grana, Matteson, and Hamilton will reject such arguments and publicly distance themselves from this supporter.

Democrats oppose reform to prevent future solar scams

At last night's NJ Herald debate, Democrat candidate for Freeholder Patrick Curreri came out squarely against the reform that would have prevented the solar program that ended in a $26 million debt for Sussex County Taxpayers.  Four Freeholder candidates held the debate in Newton this evening, Democrat Howard Zatkowsky was absent.

Democrat Curreri opposed the steps taken by neighboring Warren County which has established the requirement of voter approval for discretionary county bonding for projects such as the one that became the solar debacle in Sussex County.  The reform has been so successful in Warren County that the county has been able to cut property taxes there.  In contrast, Sussex County has had to raise its property taxes year after year.

Warren County passed the reform in a 2013 ordinance which requires voter approval for bonding that exceeds 2 percent of the annual appropriations of the county.  As Freeholder Herb Yardley said:  "This ordinance would provide a check on spending.  It would slow down the process of acquiring debt and it would force it out into the open to be debated publicly and then voted up or down."

The reform being proposed is one that is already used by local towns.  In 2017, Newton voters shot down a school bonding referendum.  The voters of Newton had the opportunity to take on $18 million at a cost to them and their families of $337 per household for the next 20 years.  They weighed the benefits with the costs and said NO.  This reform places county government under the same discipline.  It is a reform that expands transparency and democracy.

At the close of the debate, Curreri had the opportunity to correct his position on reform, but when asked by Herald reporter Bruce Scruton directly, he reiterated his opposition to no borrowing without the approval of the voters.  Curreri said he OPPOSED the reform on live video and to the crowd in Newton.