Phoebus accused of pension-padding by Skylands

The Skylands crew really got their wires crossed over the weekend.  The same guys who put together the Gail Phoebus campaign committee brought up a very negative incident that occurred during Gail Phoebus' tenure as a Sussex County Freeholder.

Calling it a case of "pension-padding," Skylands blasted the awarding of a 3-year contract to then County Counsel Dennis McConnell.  Here's what they had to say about it:

Somebody didn't do their research, because Freeholder Gail Phoebus voted for that contract.  In fact, the vote was unanimous.  So if it was a case of pension-padding, who let it happen?

Is George Graham throwing Gail Phoebus under the bus in order to score points and improve his standing?  A recent poll conducted in Sussex County revealed that voters thought more highly of Freeholder Phil Crabb than they did Freeholder George Graham.  And the Freeholder Board in Sussex County is poorly thought of by Sussex County voters.  This is not the case in neighboring Warren County. 

The findings from the poll will be covered in greater detail later this week.

Stay tuned...

Leaked emails drive Phoebus bonkers

Every time a politician gets caught forwarding something they shouldn't, or posting something they shouldn't, they make threats and piss and moan a lot.

In 2011, liberal Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner shared a sexually explicit photograph of himself via his public Twitter account to a woman who was following him on Twitter.  After several days of claiming that his account had been hacked and that he was the victim, Weiner held a press conference at which he finally admitted doing it.  It emerged that it wasn't the first time he lied and this was only the first of many scandals. 

Fast forward to 2015 and Freeholder Gail Phoebus.  Phoebus shared a number of compromising emails with members of her campaign for Assembly, some of which have now surfaced on Watchdog.  Like Weiner, Phoebus is trying to cover up her own stupidity by making irrational claims against others.  And she's even employed a political operation to try to spin it -- just like liberal Democrat Weiner did. 

But what can't be denied, is that Gail Phoebus is an Internet moron who carelessly compromised herself.  Here is an example of a document she forwarded around (note that she did so in response to a request for a telephone number).

So here is the NEW tidbit for today.  It indicates that there was some degree of coordination on a SCMUA story -- starting way back in March 2015 -- that ended up with the public smearing of a Sussex County Republican and his replacement on SCMUA by a liberal Obama supporter in January 2016.  The punch line comes at the end.

 

Finally, we have been receiving a great outpouring of information regarding the business practices of a certain restaurateur who holds public office.  Please keep the information flowing our way.  Those who hold public office are worthy of scrutiny and some of the stories you have been sharing with us are most shocking.

Stay tuned...

Leaked Email: The check that went from bad to good

In the spring of 2015, a campaign consultant to then Freeholder Gail Phoebus told the Assembly candidate to return the check of an attorney who was connected to the failed solar project in Sussex County:

Not only did she send back the money, Freeholder Phoebus criticized the law firm who had sent it:

"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)

"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)

Fast forward to the 2016 re-election bid of Phoebus ally Freeholder George Graham.  Graham takes a $2,000.00 check from the same law firm Phoebus criticized and then in July, after having safely won the GOP primary, Graham hands the same law firm a no-bid contract.

...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 did Freeholder George Graham engineer 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?  And why has Phoebus, who was so critical of the law firm in 2015, why has she been mute in 2016-2017 and hasn't raised a single note of protest?

Is gay the new god?

Are some in the media its new high priests?

You can be forgiven for forming these opinions, especially if you've been watching the reaction to what Congressman Scott Garrett is supposed to have said at a private meeting.  Although no record exists of what the Congressman actually said, supposedly he told a meeting of Republican Congressmen that he didn't want to make a contribution to their campaign account because he didn't like the political ideology of the candidates they funded -- including gay candidates.

Now it has never been confirmed that Congressman Garrett actually said this, but what if he did?  Was he arguing that self-identified "gay" candidates are not by definition "conservative" and so, as a conservative himself, Garrett will not provide financial backing for their candidacies? 

We simply do not know the context of the words Congressman Garrett supposedly, according to sources, said.  But he did, supposedly, say the word "gay" in a negative context.  And that was enough.

You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find the kind of over-reaction that happened next.  Some in the media -- too many -- behaved as if it were a case of treasonous blasphemy and called on Garrett to publicly confess his sin and repent -- or go.  The editor of the Star-Ledger hoped for a savior, as he put it, a "gay John Wayne", to do violence against the Congressman.  This was kind of nuts, but other commentators went much further.

Trenton Democrats even launched a crusade led by an Ironworkers Union - trained LGBT operative, better known for sting operations against homeless shelters for women (what kind of people target and sue homeless shelters anyway?).  Remember the Ironworkers?  The FBI caught them burning a church in Philadelphia and the U.S. Justice Department has been winning conviction after conviction against them.

Looking at the Twitter accounts of some of these "journalists" you would think that what Congressman Garrett may or may not have said was the only important story in the last weeks of July.  When not enjoying their bobo (bourgeois - bohemian) lifestyle, it's all they want to talk about. 

But there are other stories out there.  Important stories that didn't get the attention Garrett's gay blasphemy (supposedly) story got.  And that's a shame, because journalism could have made the difference.

At the July 22nd meeting of the Sussex County Freeholder Board, Freeholder Director Phil Crabb read out the following letter from Freeholder Gail Phoebus to the Board.  It described an imminent concern:

July 22, 2015

The Honorable Phil Crabb

Freeholder Director

Sussex County Administration Building

1 Spring Street

Newton, New Jersey  07860

Dear Director Crabb and Fellow Freeholders:

The Sussex County Division of Social Services has reported that funding for the Emergency Assistance (EA) program has been terminated.  Currently, those making use of the program are all receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the Department of Social Security. As such, they have been determined disabled and not able to work.

The Housing Assistance Program (HAP) that helps people with a long term medical issues or disabilities with maintaining housing expired earlier this month.  Now there are 29 adults and 3 children (2 families) who face homelessness on August 1st unless the county can find the money to keep them housed.  One child is a 6-year-old girl who is undergoing treatment for cancer.  There is no way that we can stand by and see her made homeless. 

I suggest that the Freeholder Board hold off spending any money on filling administrative positions until we have worked out how to fund housing for these vulnerable people.  It is the prudent and humane thing to do given the circumstances we face.  Even if it means forgoing some of our salaries as Freeholders, I believe we should look at all options in finding the means for our neighbors to keep a roof over their heads.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gail Phoebus

Sussex County Freeholder

Freeholder Phoebus' letter was sent to the same media covering the Garrett gay blasphemy (supposedly) story.  They were too busy.  Because there was no media coverage, no public pressure, 29 adults and 3 children will have no place to live come August 1st.  A child who is undergoing cancer treatment will have to recuperate from the street.

The media's priorities have real consequences.

Vohden, Mudrick appoint former Essex Democrat to top job

On Sunday, Herald reporter Rob Jennings wrote a very interesting column about Sussex County's new top dog -- County Administrator Stephen Gruchacz. 

At last week's meeting of the county's Freeholder Board, Gruchacz -- who had been the county's Human Services Administrator -- was appointed County Administrator on a 3-2 vote (Crabb, Vohden, Mudrick voted yes; Phoebus and Graham voted no).  Along with the promotion, Gruchacz picked up a 22% salary increase worth $30,000 a year and the opportunity to boost his taxpayer-funded pension with a three-year contract. 

Not bad for someone who has never lived in Sussex County.  Crabb, Vohden, and Mudrick waived the county's residency requirement to allow Gruchacz, a resident of Somerset County, to take Sussex County's top job. 

We don't know about Crabb, but what Vohden and Mudrick should have known as they made these decisions was that Stephen Gruchacz had once been a very active Democrat Party politician in Essex County.  In fact, Gruchacz was the Democrat Municipal Chairman in Maplewood -- part of the particularly repugnant party machine in Essex County/Newark.  

When Gruchacz was a Democrat candidate for local office, the campaign he ran was too rough even for Essex County.  The Republicans actually sued Gruchasz and his Democrat running mate for making "false and defamatory statements" against the Republicans.  Gruchasz and the Democrats dismissed the charges as "political grandstanding."  The accusations were over an alleged "no bid contract."  Are you experiencing deja vu? 

Hey, politics isn't bean bag and we're sure Gruchasz got as good as he gave.  In fact, he's risen in our estimation -- but did any one of these Republicans stop and think about it before waiving the rules, giving a raise, and promoting this one-time machine Democrat to the top job in the state's most Republican County? 

This is a vote that only a R.I.N.O. would make.  That's R.I.N.O. -- as in Republican In Name Only. 

As Democrat Chairman of Maplewood, Stephen Gruchasz also held an appointed county position with Essex County, as that county's Director of the Division of Community Health Services.  Jennings notes that he was Essex County's Director the Department of Health & Rehabilitation.  Gruchasz left Essex County for Somerset County in April 2002 -- about the same time he started working for Sussex County. 

In contrast with Sussex County and its unelected County Administrator, Essex County has an elected County Executive.  In April 2002, a two-year investigation culminated in the Essex County offices being raided by the FBI.  That October, indictments were announced against the County Executive and others.  The County Executive pleaded guilty to two of twenty counts filed against him -- admitting that he had solicited an illegal $15,000 campaign contribution in exchange for a county contract.   He was sentenced to 13 months in prison. 

Gruchasz' time at Essex County had its controversies -- particularly when he tried to mastermind the sale of that county's geriatric center.  As reported in the Star-Ledger (August 17, 1995) residents and labor union leaders demanded that Gruchacz be fired.  Deja vu, all over again?