ROSE & LAZZARO HIRED TARGET OF LETTER AFTER CONTRIBUTION

In March of 2015, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to the county counsel with concerns about several lawyers retained by Sussex County:

(The full, 17-page correspondence is available from Watchdog upon request)

In July 2016, Freeholder Boss George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for the very law firm identified above as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $40 million.  Freeholders Jonathan Rose and Carl Lazzaro dutifully followed Graham. 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 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 did Freeholders Rose and Lazzaro follow Boss Graham and bring 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 Boss 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)

Why did Freeholders Rose and Lazzaro -- one-time critics of the solar scam -- become its enablers?  

When Graham was on the outside, as a minority member (with Phoebus) of the five member board, Graham did one thing, now he does the opposite.  Now, as the boss of the Freeholder Board (controlling three votes of its five members – himself, Rose and Lazzaro) Graham is comfortable with those he used to call the bad guys and has even taken campaign contributions from them.

Where Sussex County taxpayers had?  Was all that anti-solar business an act by Jonathan Rose and Carl Lazzaro?  They need to step up and do some explaining.

Graham hired target of letter after contribution

In March of 2015, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to the county counsel with concerns about several lawyers retained by Sussex County:

(The full, 17-page correspondence is available from Watchdog upon request)

In July 2016, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for the very law firm identified above as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $40 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 Assemblywoman) 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)

Why has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler? 

When Graham was on the outside, as a minority member (with Phoebus) of the five member board, Graham did one thing, now he does the opposite.  Now, as the boss of the Freeholder Board (controlling three of its five members) Graham is comfortable with those he used to call the bad guys and has even taken campaign contributions from them.

What all this means is that Sussex County taxpayers must remain vigilant, must attend Freeholder meetings, and must continue to ask probing questions.

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!

Democrat is calling the shots on solar settlement

Why is a Democrat calling the shots on the push to settle the SunLight solar scheme? 

Why is this Democrat insisting that the people of Sussex County shut up and do as they are told -- without knowing the cost they will have to pay?

That Democrat is south Jersey lawyer David Weinstein of the Archer Greiner law firm.  Weinstein is County Administrator John Eskilson's "special solar counsel".

Weinstein was Democrat Municipal Chairman in Burlington County and is a Member of the Burlington County Democrat Committee.  He's run for office and was a big supporter of Governor Jon Corzine and President Obama.

Weinstein is ideologically committed to the idea of using solar power to replace traditional sources of energy.  Unfortunately, solar power hasn't been able to work as a significant source of energy without massive infusions of government support and taxpayers' money.  This suits the Democrats just fine.

On Friday, Bruce Scruton of the Herald reported that Freeholder Director Phil Crabb wanted to let the people of Sussex County know all the details of the proposed settlement to the solar scheme before the Freeholders voted on it:

Earlier this week, Crabb said he would recommend to his fellow board members that the intricacies of any possible solution be made public for full discussion before the board takes a vote on accepting or rejecting the proposal. The board would need to take a separate vote to allow what was discussed in executive session to be made public.

Freeholder Director Crabb -- as the leader of the elected Freeholder Board, the man who is supposed to be in charge -- was told "NO" by Democrat Weinstein and was made to go before the media to retract his earlier statement.  On Sunday, Bruce Scruton of the Herald reported:

 Freeholder Director Phil Crabb, who called for a full airing of the details earlier last week, said he was told by the county's special counsel that the settlement could still fall apart, so talking about details would be premature before Wednesday's meeting.

Reporting in the Herald, Scruton wrote:

David Weinstein, of the firm Archer Greiner and special counsel for the solar project, cautioned Freeholder Director Phil Crabb that many documents which the freeholders discussed during Thursday's session are still subject to negotiations and could be changed, and advised the board to withhold full documents from the public.

Weinstein isn't telling the truth.  He knows that the deal has already been finalized by SunLight General Capital and Power Partners MasTec.  The people have a right to see the details.  

The next line from the Herald story tells you who is really in charge (hint: it's not the Freeholder Board the people voted for):

He (Weinstein) and County Administrator John Eskilson discussed how the information can be released and said they should have a working framework put together by midday today.

Let's be clear.  These two are the bosses.  The Freeholder Board is make-believe.  Its Director is a panty waist.  The voters are only there to have someone to shake down.  The message is: You will be told only what we want you to know, when we want you to know it.

In today's Herald, Democrat Weinstein was doubling down.  Bruce Scruton told the story of how a political operator from south Jersey wasn't going to allow the people of Sussex County to know the details of the bill they are going to have to pay:   

However, David Weinstein of Archer Greiner, special counsel for the solar project, said details and documents should not be released since the deal is not done until the board votes.

Under the framework of the settlement, which Weinstein said could be discussed, the cost to county taxpayers is estimated to be $6.5 million over the next 13 years with most of that money being paid out of the county budget in the first years.

Who the hell does Weinstein think he is?

The reason this wheeler-dealer lawyer is blinding the people until it's too late is that he doesn't want us to have the knowledge to decide for ourselves on whether or not it's a good deal until after the deal is done.  Then we'll just have to bend over, shut up, and pay.

Update on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 9:55PM by Sussex County Watchdog

It's like ObamaCare all over again

Weinstein is channeling Pelosi. . .