Will Andover taxpayers be sued for trying to silence blog?

What did Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus mean when she told her Assembly colleague that Andover Township was going to silence Bill Winkler?

 

Phoebus, a former Andover Township Committee member, has targeted Winkler claiming that he is the "founder" of the Sussex County Watchdog blog.  Phoebus knows better, as the blog was created at the time of her first run for countywide office in 2012.  In fact, Phoebus' campaign mail featured the Watchdog in it, so she should know that the blog was founded by the late Rob Eichmann and has been maintained by a group of his associates ever since. Phoebus herself has contributed numerous stories to Watchdog.

Sussex County Watchdog has a long history with Andover Township that of late has become contentious.  The Watchdog has complained about Andover Township's failure to follow OPRA (Open Public Records Act) rules and has written about its failure to abide by the Open Public Meetings Act.  The blog acted as a whistleblower when it uncovered the improper way in which a recent resolution was drafted and passed.  Now that the blog has criticized Phoebus and her former colleagues in the Andover Township government, Phoebus is angry with the Watchdog.

What has upset Andover Township's politicians the most is Sussex County Watchdog's coverage of the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund -- Andover Township's own Camp Nordland.  According to Assemblyperson Phoebus, township officials became incensed when the Watchdog made the following recommendations:

That Andover Township place a plaque at the site of the American National Socialist Bund's Camp Nordland, to honor the victims of the ideology practiced there; and that Andover Township donate all proceeds from events held at the former Nazi Beer Hall to organizations representing the victims of the Holocaust and their families.

Phoebus told a fellow legislator that Andover Township was going to "get" the person they held responsible.  And now, it appears that an attempt is being made. 

On Monday, October 31st, the Sussex County Watchdog blog posted a report about how an old Quaker gentleman had been accosted by Sussex County Freeholder Director George Graham and two Andover Township Committeemen.  The blog report is posted here:

http://www.sussexcountywatchdog.com/blog/2016/10/31/graham-supporters-accost-pro-lifer-at-gop-event.html

The incident took place at a GOP event held at the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund.  For some strange reason, instead of demolishing the former Camp Nordland, the town leaders of Andover Township have maintained the building that hosted numerous Nazi, Fascist, and Ku Klux Klan rallies in the 1930's. 

The day after the Watchdog blog posted its story, the Deputy Mayor of Andover Township filed a harassment complaint against the old Quaker who was accosted by the three Sussex County politicians.  According to witnesses, one of the Andover Committeemen had threatened to "punch someone in the face," while another Andover Committeeman had threatened a bystander earlier that evening by saying "you better not be his (the old Quaker) friend."   

Of course, the people who run Andover Township would have you believe that it happened the other way round.  They want you to believe that a 60 year old Quaker assaulted a 40 year old Marine and his two comrades.  They want you to believe that writing about their political corruption is "harassment".

As David Danzis of the New Jersey Herald reported today, the Andover Township Deputy Mayor has filed a complaint against the alleged blogger:

http://www.njherald.com/20161214/county-political-consultant-faces-assault-harassment-charges

Really?  In America?  Are they really playing the old brown-shirt trick of beating up the Jew and then claiming he started it, in order to have him arrested?  Shame on the elected and appointed officials of Andover Township and shame on the residents who elected them and then stood by and let it happen.

Filing a false report is a serious offense, as is the attempt to deprive American citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights -- both the right to report the news and opinion, and the right to read it.  Of course, the former Hudson County Democrats who have switched their party registration and now occupy positions of power on the Sussex County Freeholder Board (Graham) and in Andover Township are following the playbook of where they came from.

A few years ago there was a similar case in Hudson County when the mayor of a city there decided that he wanted to "take down" an anonymous website that was publishing news and opinions that he didn't want published.  The mayor and his son conspired to "take down the website and to identify, intimidate, and harass those who operated and were associated with the website."  The United States Department of Justice takes such civil rights violations very seriously and the feds arrested both the mayor and his son.  The son took the rap and was convicted in federal court.     

Is there a similar conspiracy in Sussex County?  Watchdog knows the names of a great many political figures in Sussex County who were aware of this matter well before the accused was and that Assemblyperson Phoebus herself was making calls about it, spreading false information, and that she has expressed her animosity towards the Watchdog website and the individuals she claims are associated with it.  Yes, this stinks to high heaven! 

Will this end up in federal court?  If it does, it will impact you greatly if you are a taxpayer in Andover Township.  Remember, you elected them.  And you are responsible when they behave like fascist thugs.  As they say, stay tuned...

Harvey Roseff asks tough questions

Citizen activist Harvey Roseff has been asking tough questions all summer long.  He scored a big victory for taxpayers when he organized a ballot initiative that stopped Byram Township from spending $11 million on new municipal facilities.

Mr. Roseff, who once ran as an independent candidate for the Sussex County Freeholder Board, raises so many important issues that we've decided to collect them and update the public from time to time.  This is our first such installment.

Sussex County Freeholder Board

There is a controversy over a key county appointment that revolves around the question of whether or not there should be a vote of the elected Freeholder Board to confirm said appointment.  The appointment is that of Carol A. Novrit, the county's social services director, who was promoted to administrator of the Department of Health and Human Services.  We believe Ms. Novrit to be highly qualified, but as the appointment was made by an unelected official, we must join with Freeholders Vohden and Crabb in insisting that the entire elected Freeholder Board be given the opportunity of a public vote on the confirmation.

We are particularly concerned with Freeholder Director "Boss" Graham's assertion that he doesn't need to do things in public.  The NJ Herald's Rob Jennings reported:

The decision to elevate Novrit, who started her new job Tuesday, was made last week by Acting County Administrator Ron Tappan.

Tappan consulted with the freeholders but did not seek a public vote.

Vohden, near the end of the 21/2-hour meeting, charged that state law required a public vote.

"When did I vote? Where is my consent?" he said.

Freeholder Director George Graham, in response, asked County Counsel John Williams whether the process that was used -- Tappan consulted with freeholders before making his decisions -- had followed the law.

Williams replied that it had.

Undeterred, Vohden said he planned to revisit the situation.

Tappan did not attend Wednesday's meeting.

Should the unelected Acting County Administrator be deciding on an appointment by backroom "consulting" out of the public eye?  That is what public freeholder board meetings are for.  Then he has the balls to skip the public meeting when questions could have been put to him about his behind-the-scenes "consulting" process?  Wasn't this what "Boss" Graham criticized the old county administrator for?  It would be base hypocrisy for Freeholders Graham, Lazzaro, and Rose to allow this and we hope the latter two will stand up to the former and ensure that he allows a public vote.

Mr. Roseff summed it up by commenting:  "A lawyer, seeking his 30% payday by filing a piece of paper for a fee that buys a good lunch, should not be allowed to muzzle a government official. That's the role of a Judge after a trial. Freeholder Vohden - your opinion is why you were elected. Represent the people."

Hopatcong School Board

Referencing the fact that New Jersey has the nation's highest home foreclosure rate, largely because it has the highest property taxes in America, Mr. Roseff writes:  "The BOE rains a foreclosure pox on its people. Hopatcong has had a 33% drop in student population and a 27% local revenue increase in budget over the past 10 years. In a deflationary time, that is a huge local burden increase for an aging homeowner demographic."

Roseff goes on to suggest that the candidates in this year's school board elections should "advocate for an immediate 10% cut in the budget with an additional 15% cut in the following 5 years."

Getting back to foreclosure rates for a moment.  As of August 2016, these were the states with the top foreclosure rates in the country:

United States

1 in every 1388 homes

Top 5 States

New Jersey

1 in every 544 homes

Maryland

1 in every 622 homes

Delaware

1 in every 740 homes

Nevada

1 in every 807 homes

Florida

1 in every 824 homes

Sussex County, NJ

1 in every 325 homes

In Hopatcong, the foreclosure rate is more than double the state's rate, coming in at one in every 219 homes.  Vernon, at one in every 190 homes, is even higher.

Frankford Township School District Board of Education

Earlier this week, voters in Branchville and Frankford approved $1.46 million in new school spending to replace the school roof and upgrade security at the Frankford Township School.  The vote was taken in a special election, called for the purpose, and not at the November General Election. 

The referendum passed with a nearly 65 percent majority -- with unofficial vote counts of 476 residents in favor and 260 against.  There are 554 registered voters in Branchville Borough and 3,911 in Frankford Township.

Harvey Roseff commented:

"Here we have a BOE who derailed public participation. By calling a special election, it organized to avoid the full electorate participation of the November general election turnout. Yet the public's request to have fiscal responsibility is disturbingly countered by the excuse that BOE meetings are not attended. 

This wasn't about 'architects', it was about correctly addressing an out of control tax and spend BOE personality.

At only 520 students, at $20,000/student, this BOE has not performed in the public's interest. Costs have soared - chasing Frankford/Branchville residents out of New Jersey. The BOE overhead and spending needs to right size through a consolidation process."

Stay tuned...

The State of Things in One Rude Picture

The state of the Democratic National Committee.

The state of New Jersey's roads and bridges if we don't find a way to pay for their maintenance and repair.

The state of so-called "Green" initiatives or where have all the flowers gone?

Who is running the Sussex solar scam.

The man who can clean it up.

The men who are blocking him.

The state of the Sussex County GOP under Freeholder Director George Graham.

NJ Herald continues its attack on reality

Let's be clear, the New Jersey Herald is not a non-profit entity representing Sussex County.  It is owned by the for-profit Quincy Media corporation of Quincy, Illinois.  It is mainly a broadcast company, owning radio and television stations throughout the mid-west.  The corporation's only holding on the east coast, one of two newspapers it owns, is the New Jersey Herald. 

This corporation makes its millions in profit off advertising revenues.  It is not the words written by the reporters or the news shows on radio or television that matter -- they simply get eyes on the page -- it is all those advertisements for vinyl siding, used cars, socks, and suppositories.  That is where the money is, let's be clear on that.  Let's also be clear that the Herald isn't published for the benefit of the community, it is published to make a profit by a for-profit corporation over 1,000 miles away.  The day it doesn't make money and they see no hope of it making money, it will be gone. 

The Herald is still pissed off at Senator Oroho for suggesting that property taxes could be reduced by not requiring state, county, and local governments to pay media corporations to place all those public legal notices and advertisements in the back of newspapers.  Governmental entities have their own websites on which they could publish all those notices and advertisements for free.  Forcing them to pay newspapers to do so appears redundant and it costs taxpayers millions in property tax revenues.  It's like a mandated direct government subsidy to the newspaper/advertising industry.

Has the Herald ever covered this subject?  Have they ever written about it?  This is millions in property tax revenue that could be saved.  Doesn't that at least warrant a discussion?  But instead of a mature, honest, above-board discussion about a way to save taxpayers' money and maybe use that money to cut property taxes, what we have instead is a hissy fit followed by the big hate.

So now the Herald is in hate mode.  Big hate.  They want to screw somebody, and to do so they will blatantly ignore the facts about an issue, and will fashion a narrative by selectively using the voices of others, while preventing some from being heard.  This is accomplished by publishing letters to the editor from people who are attacking the object of the newspaper's hatred, while not publishing others.  On the comments page, they permit some to post comments but not others.  Both the Herald staff and its attorney admit to doing this by applying selective "criteria" in determining who gets to post -- something unique to the Herald.

Sunday's Herald was a case in point.  The New Jersey Herald published the letters of three Oroho haters (Nathan Orr, Troy Orr, and Bob Klymaz) who often publish in the Herald.

One letter, by Assembly candidate Nathan Orr, takes aim at Watchdog itself and calls us "an anonymous blogger".  Now as every reader of this website knows, we are a collective and we print whatever is sent to us and withhold names only upon request.  We do so in keeping with the longstanding American tradition of anonymous speech.  Benjamin Franklin published his attacks against the establishment of the day, anonymously, and one of the central documents in our founding are the Federalist Papers, also written anonymously.  Indeed, no less than the United States Supreme Court has defended the right to publish anonymously.  In its 1995 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court ruled:

"Anonymity is a shield... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular:  to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation."

Ask yourself this question:  What would have happened to the county worker who tipped us off about the unsafe work environment in its offices a couple years back?  We published, the Herald and others followed, and the situation was corrected.  If we had published the name, that employee would have been retaliated against and when the Herald reporter called, too scared to tell the truth.  The same goes for the scheme to sell the county dump and a dozen others.   

When citizens had information regarding the solar scam, it was Watchdog -- NOT the NJ Herald -- who brought their information to the FBI, the United States Justice Department, and Attorney General's office.  It was Watchdog -- NOT the NJ Herald -- that arranged those meetings. Where was the Herald? This website has protected the anonymity of dozens of whistleblowers.  Would candidate Orr have us turn whistleblowers over to be punished? 

Just last week, the NJ Herald was ignoring the upcoming solar presentation until we published and they followed in the nick of time to help make sure citizens turned out.  But where is the Herald's editorial about the NO-BID CONTRACT handed to the law firm that both George Graham and Gail Phoebus said should have been fired for their handling of the bailout?  There is none. 

It was left to Watchdog to point out this turnabout by Freeholder Director Graham, who is now the biggest cheerleader for the firm he wanted fired last year.  The Herald doesn't rock the boat with advertisers.

In his letter, candidate Nathan Orr makes much of the 11 percent he picked up in the 2015 Republican primary for Assembly, in which he edged out Marie Bilik for third place (Parker Space and Gail Phoebus won easily).  What candidate Orr doesn't realize, and any political scientist will tell him, is that in a highly contested, negative-filled primary like that was; one in which every candidate was being attacked -- except for Orr, who was being entirely ignored -- he served as a kind of "none-of-the-above" opt-out for voters.  People weren't so much voting for him, because he did nothing to communicate his message, as they were voting against everyone else.  In fact, Nathan Orr has tested so poorly in subsequent polling, that he is no longer tested at all.  It is a waste of a question because nobody knows him.  Sorry.

 

But that hasn't stopped Nathan Orr from giving us all the benefit of his "wisdom" on some very complicated issues.  Orr is fond of stating the obvious, such as "our Legislature should be decreasing taxes" and even more so of putting down others with snarky, juvenile comments.  Nathan Orr is Sussex County's Rachel Maddow.

Here are some questions for this candidate and public figure:  Have you worked out a detailed plan to solve any problem, even a little one?  Can you come up with even a minor reform and then follow it through:  Meet with your legislators, ask them to set up a meeting with the Department of Transportation, and show them your better way?  Have you ever gone down to Trenton to testify for or against a piece of legislation?  Any legislation?  Anything at all?  Do you get involved in the local government of your town?  On an economic development committee even?  Have you ever worked with a democratic body of any kind to learn how difficult it is to find agreement?

And while we're at it, let's pose those questions to the other letter writers who seem to have all the answers, but who somehow never show up to do any of the hard work to actually make it happen.  Frankly, the NJ Herald letters page is beginning to sound like a stream-of-consciousness play set in a bar. Everything is simpler looking through the bottom of beer glass.  "Come on Joe, let's have another, if we keep drinking like this we'll solve all of America's problems and the world's too!"

Nathan Orr is a particularly young version of an Ann Smulewicz type.  The comment pages of the Herald are full of this type:  People who are in politics but who lack the honesty to own up to it.  Instead, they push the idea that elected officials are some alien life form -- "bad", to their "good".  And corporations like Quincy Media exploit this to sell newspapers. 

They dehumanize fellow human beings so they can more easily urge others to destroy them.  So Steve Oroho, a neighbor, the football coach at Pope John, active in community organizations and charities, is portrayed as this evil alien being.  And they've done the same thing to farmer Parker Space, and military mom Alison Littell McHose, and businesswoman Gail Phoebus, and high school sports hero Gary Chiusano, and platoon leader Mike Strada, and businessman Jeff Parrott, and the list goes on and on.  All our neighbors, all people we know, all people who we can walk up and talk to anytime. 

The Nathan Orrs of the world don't talk to people, they talk at them.  They dehumanize them, turn them into "things" that need to be destroyed.  And corporations like Quincy Media exploit this to sell newspapers.  Maybe it's time we've learned more about the person behind the corporate label -- Mr. Ralph Oakley of Quincy, Illinois -- before allowing him to manipulate us into hating our neighbors?

Questions on Solar for Wed. night Freeholder mtg.

Here is what Freeholder George Graham said in 2015 about the people who he intends to give a no-bid contract to at Wednesday night's Freeholder Board meeting:

"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)

Solar activist Harvey Roseff has followed this issue for some time.  Below is taken from what he publicly posted today.  Roseff first provides some background before he asks specific questions:

In 2011, Sussex County was one of three counties (with Morris and Somerset) recruited into a solar program by the Morris County Improvement Authority (and its equivalent in Somerset County).  The MCIA facilitated a solar program that had local government units contract directly with a developer for solar power.  Some believed it was for low cost solar power.  What they were not told was that Somerset County's rate in the same program was 4.1cents/kwH, while Sussex County's rate was 9.35cents/kwH (both escalate similarly each year).  So the Freeholders allowed Sussex County taxpayers to be taken from the start.

Sussex County guaranteed the developer bonds, the developer promised self financed equity of $7,800,000 and referred to its $30,000,000 solar fund to confirm its financial stability.

The developer, Sunlight corporation, A SINGLE BIDDER, was about to miss its first bond/lease payment in 2012/3.  This was a FIRST bond payment. Where was Sunlight's skin in the game?  The private money was a mirage.

Sussex County and local governments then changed the solar project special purpose entity contracts (which also impacts bonding) -- allowing the developer to raid previously protected taxpayer construction funds to hide that Sussex County taxpayers had been baited and switched.  It turned out Sussex County had contracted with hollow shell companies.  Taxpayer protections were ripped away, yet taxpayers had done no wrong.  Where was County management?  The SEC? Our Archer & Greiner bond counsel?  County counsel?  MCIA counsel?  MCIA?

Some may say the project strife in 2012-4 was caused by awful preparatory engineering.  One of the key engineering companies was Birdsall, then enmeshed elsewhere in a huge pay-to-play scandal encompassing large parts of New Jersey. Birdsall was associated with Sussex County's bond counsel, who is still on the county payroll.  This same law firm gave a political contribution of $2000 to Freeholder Director Graham for the June 2016 primary election.

Sussex County was never found in Court to be at fault.  It was the developer, Sunlight corporation, who lost in arbitration to its former "partner", the contractor Mastec corporation.  Sussex County won, all the way through to the NJ Supreme Court.  But even after Sussex County won every case, the county's legal team, its Freeholders, and administrators allowed the bill to go to the taxpayers of Sussex County.  Why?

Sunlight corporation was found to be at fault primarily because it allowed too many changes to the solar program's engineering and siting.  This happened again in 2015/16.  Are we once again paying for the same shoddy program management and engineering?

Mastec corporation now had a problem to collect from Sunlight corporation.  Mastec discovered, as Sussex County and local governments did in 2013, that Sunlight's promise of $7.8million and a $30million "solar fund" was, well, it wasn't there.  Sussex County negotiated the contracts -- where was the money and why did it escape unnoticed? 

So after years of solar program strife, County then hired a special counsel for settlement negotiations from the same firm responsible for oversight of the original deal.

Sussex County agreed to bailout the private corporations involved by raiding our "Homestead" piggy bank for $7million.  We capped Sunlight's maintenance costs for the rest of the 15 year program.  Sussex taxpayers assumed Sunlight's project risk.  The public was told "only" $7million more, but there was a hidden $3million risk -- Sussex County had guaranteed a new 1 year loan from Mastec to the hollow shell of Sunlight.

Nobody in county government can seem to produce the Freeholder Resolution that guaranteed this loan.  Sussex County can't provide the Mastec - Sunlight loan agreement. 

How do you guarantee a loan without seeing it?

Then, in May 2015, when Sussex County issued a bond to pay this "guarantee" on the 1 year loan between Sunlight and Mastec, the County didn't declare in the Resolution that there was a loan default by Sunlight. 

HOW CAN THE COUNTY PAY OFF A LOAN GUARANTEE WITHOUT DECLARING THE BORROWER IS IN DEFAULT AND STATING THIS IN THE BOND RESOLUTION?

The same law firm that is set to receive the no-bid contract this evening, negotiated this bailout, and was bond counsel.  While Freeholder Director Graham has publicly proclaimed he wants "new eyes" at tomorrow's Freeholder Board meeting he will bring back the same old set of eyes. 

As for the public's eyes, Roseff hopes Sussex taxpayers get a thorough, detailed presentation from the County.  Roseff claims that the County has ignored teh state's Open Public Records Act.  The County even denied "previously released" financial forecasta and the raw data to back them up. 

Documents like SREC certificates earned, in inventory and sales contracts; federal 1603 applications, audits, bank statements, lease payments, bond payments, ... have all been denied for two months.  

So here are some questions, posed by Harvey Roseff, but limited because some information has been withheld legally or illegally.  The questions are:

1. Why is the same law firm, responsible for the solar mess, getting a no-bid contract? Is it the $2,000 political donation? Where are our managers?

2. For months, why does county government not release documents that OPRA says must be released?

3. Where is the $375,000 security for tearing down the solar farms at the end of their life? Is it supposed to be in "Account # 156291009" named the "Restoration Security Fund"?  It was ridiculously small to begin with, however, did Sussex County allow Sunlight corporation to yet again use funds that were meant to protect the taxpayer?

4. Who was responsible for the accounting and when did these errors occur?  Please detail how the loss zoomed from $900,000 in 2015 to $2,600,000 in 2016. The county government passed this loss to residents in our property taxes, yet in 2016 the program is the same half built program it has been for years with only an additional ~ $423,000 in debt payments.  Sussex County Freeholders refused to discuss this at the budget meeting, please detail the $2.6million loss in 2016.

5. Did Sunlight corporation install "net metering" and how are these cash flows accounted for?  In the program documents provided to Harvey Roseff, he curiously couldn't find mention of "net metering", but he has been told by those at high levels, that net-metering is in place.  If so, in which Trustee bank account is this money placed?  Has this money been going to the taxpayer?

6. Who pays anew for Sunlight corporation's 2015/16 management failures? Sunlight promised a December 2015 build-out to gain its taxpayer bailout. With the bailout, we paid for Sunlight's business mistakes and failures in the past. Sunlight once again failed, after being able to prepare for this build-out moment for 3 years.  Remember, they are the "solar experts" with the $30million solar fund. 

Is the taxpayer being compensated for the approximate $120,000/month cost for Sunlight's failure to deliver on its promises in the bailout?

7. Freeholder Rose has publicly stated that Jingoli corporation has no real authority.  When did the Freeholder Board vote on Jingoli corporation to replace our contracted party in project discussions?  Who in county government approved that the interloper should be Jingoli?

8. Taxpayers provided an immediate bailout to Sunlight in 2015, while Sunlight promised future performance.  Who is paying for Sunlight's new failures? There were 3 years to determine correct sites, inspect for strong roofs, establish power studies.  What are the numbers?

a. Will Sunlight meet the solar program's contracted for power generation target? If not, who pays for 15 years of revenue shortages?

b. Does Sunlight bear the cost of the 2015-16 years of constantly changing, wasteful solar program management and engineering?

c. Who ultimately pays for Sunlight's new "owner's rep", Jingoli? 

d. Where are the Restoration security funds?  What account?

e. Are there net-metering fund flows to Sunlight?  Is this proper as the taxpayer has been paying for Sunlight bond payment defaults since 2013 (Consents 1, 2 and 3)?