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.

Is Freeholder Graham opposed to the First Amendment?

The Skylands blog is a sort of quasi-government mouthpiece for the Freeholder Board majority of Boss George Graham, Jonathan Rose, and Carl Lazzaro.  During the primary, Bergen County’s John McCann had the support of Graham, Rose, and Lazzaro.  Apparently, McCann paid Graham for services of some kind, as well as county lobbyist Virginia Newman Littell, who served as his campaign’s co-chair. 

These folks just concluded a primary campaign in which they described their fellow Republican, a woman, as everything from a “pole dancer” to a “terrorist” – and suggested she “belonged in a cage” like an “animal”.  Real gentlemen, this lot. 

Now these politicians are suggesting that the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America be abrogated because they don’t like the Sussex County Watchdog website.  As Graham, Rose, and Lazzaro constitute a clear majority of the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders – and as they exercise control over the Skylands website – this could be construed as an act of county government.  More on this later… 

The McCann team (Graham, Rose, Lazzaro, and Littell) is suggesting that having won the Republican primary on June 5^th, that their candidate be immune from any negative commentary from this website.  In reply to this we suggest that you look carefully at our name.  Where do you see the word “Republican”? 

Sussex County Watchdog is not an organ of any political party.  Unlike the Skylands blog, it is not under the control of any elected official or party.  We are an agency of reform.  Any member of the public may contribute an article to Watchdog and we will publish it.  We do not ask if they belong to the Republican Party or to indeed any party. 

We find it curious that these elected Republicans are making this point.  After last year’s primary for freeholder, these elected Republicans refused to support the Republican nominee, Herb Yardley.  Instead, they provided support to the liberal Democrat nominee, Dan Perez.  

At the time, John McCann was asked to assist Republican Herb Yardley in his campaign.  Unfortunately, McCann was employed by the Democrat Sheriff of Bergen County and he wasn’t allowed to help a Republican.  

Their blog, the Skylands blog, ran a vicious campaign of personal smearing against Assemblyman Parker Space, Republican State Committeewoman Jill Space, the Space family, and the employees of Space Farms.  For this, Watchdog dubbed them “the creatures from the toilet” and so they remain.  Did it never occur to these elected Republicans that their campaign against Assemblyman Space was conducted concurrently with the Democrat Party’s campaign to unseat him and replace him with a far-leftist?  If it did, they apparently didn’t care.

So we find it humorous that these politicians suggest that a non-partisan blog be more loyal to the Republican Party than they have ever been.  

Of course, if they would like to make their arguments in writing, we would be more than happy to furnish them space on this website to do so.  Again, we are open to all points of view, all opinions.  

John McCann, as a licensed attorney in several states, should know better than to try to muscle or muzzle or restrain in any way the exercise of constitutionally protected civil rights.  This is not his first attempt.  We caution him.

Freeholder Rose admits he attacked Assemblyman Space last year

Jonathan Rose’s Skylands blog put out some pretty goofy stuff yesterday, including the admission that it was behind a series of dishonest, personal attacks against Assemblyman Parker Space (R-Sussex) during his General Election battle against two far-left Democrats.  Why? 

Well, someone who was once close to Rose called his blog “narcissistic” and suggested that Rose was deeply jealous of the Assemblyman’s popularity.  Perhaps, but the very personal nature of these attacks is still striking. 

This comes on the heels of the attacks made by Freeholders Rose and Carl Lazzaro against their Republican primary opponent, Dawn Fantasia.  Supporters of Rose and Lazzaro (and the politician they answer to, Freeholder Boss George Graham) have called Mrs. Fantasia, the only woman in the race, many names.  They have called her a "political prostitute", accused her of "pimping" a message as a "spokesperson.”  At a public meeting, one Rose-Lazzaro supporter called her a "lackey" who "belongs in a cage like the animal you are."

One of these elected buffoons told her that her name "sounds like you should be dancing on a pole."  Another told her that "you don't belong in MY Republican party." 

Why all the hostility towards a conservative, Republican, Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment woman who has cut taxes and balanced budgets as President of the Franklin Borough Council?  Is it because she isn’t “one of the (Graham) boys”?

Why is Freeholder Carl Lazzaro being dishonest?

On Sunday, Freeholder Carl Lazzaro launched a robo-call that not only disturbed the peace of the day but was disturbing in its level of dishonesty.  It is clear that Freeholder Lazzaro is attempting to deflect attention away from his own actions – and those of the Freeholder Board majority of which he is a part. 

That Freeholder Board majority – Freeholder Jonathan Rose, Freeholder Carl Lazzaro, and their “Boss” Freeholder George Graham – has made some grossly improper decisions while in a position of trust. 

Here are some questions that Freeholder Lazzaro and his side needs to answer: 

(1) Why did Freeholder Carl Lazzaro re-hire the bond counsel who failed to do his job and warn county government and county residents about the problems with the solar program contract? 

Unfortunately for Sussex County taxpayers, this lawyer didn’t even require the contract to have the basic insurances that, if they had been in place, would have protected Sussex County and its residents from financial liability.  So why did the three freeholders hire him back? 

Why are Sussex County taxpayers paying this man? 

(2) Why did Freeholder Jonathan Rose give a no-bid contract worth $518,000.00 to the lawyer who allowed the solar scam to happen in the first place? 

This lawyer ran the state office that was the final step in the process of approving a contract that turned out to be a scam.  His office was the taxpayers’ fail-safe.  But instead of catching what was an obvious problem, his office rubber-stamped the contract and the taxpayers of Sussex County were out $40 million. 

So why would Freeholders Rose, Lazzaro, and Graham give the lawyer who signed-off on the solar scam $518,000 to investigate the solar scam?  An obvious whitewash?  No wonder Sussex County has never got back a penny on the money it lost. 

(3) Why did their side take a campaign contribution from the law firm responsible for solar? 

Why would they take a campaign contribution from a law firm that they themselves acknowledged was implicated in the solar scam?  Isn’t this the very definition of “dirty” money? 

Now we know why Carl Lazzaro made that robo-call.  To deflect our attention from what he and his crew have done in office.  

Now we know why Lazzaro and Rose are trying to mislead us again. 

They lied about solar, spent more of our tax money, borrowed more, and raised property taxes every year they’ve been in office.

How can anyone argue that they deserve to be re-elected?

Why does Sussex County pay its administrator more than more populated counties do?

The Sussex County Freeholder majority of Jonathan Rose, Carl Lazzaro, and Boss George Graham reward their cronies – while they continue to piss on average county workers.  Take the County Administrator as an example.

The current County Administrator was installed by Boss Graham and the boys at a salary that is over-sized for the population of Sussex County.  But that is okay by them, because this guy follows the script they hand him to the letter.  We’re concerned actually, because if Boss Graham ever stopped short, the county administrator might find his head lodged up Graham’s backside.

Sussex County has a population of 142,000 and falling.  But its new county administrator pockets $180,000 plus a packet of perks and benefits that would choke a horse.

On the other hand, Bergen County, with a population that rivals some states (approx. 939,000) pays its county administrator just $171,182. 

Essex County – with Newark in it and all the problems that come with a big urban area (population: approx. 796,000) – its county administrator makes $142,640. 

Hudson County – with Jersey City – and a population of 677,983, pays its county administrator $167,028.  And this guy has been on the job for decades. 

Another populous (approx. 555,000) county, Union, pays its county administrator $172,000.

Morris County, population 498,423, has a county administrator who earns $171,844. 

Passaic County, population 507,945, pays its county administrator $177,012. 

Neighboring Warren County (population: approx.. 106,000) pays its county administrator $143, 235 – and he’s been on the job since 1999! 

Smaller counties tend to pay less for their county administrators, on the order of Salem ($80,000) or Cape May ($110,000).  So why do we pay so much, here in Sussex County? 

Well, boys will be boys – or rather, the boys will be the boys.