Leaked document questions need for solar study

One of the first actions of the new Sussex County Freeholder Board in January of 2016 was to spend a half million dollars of taxpayers' money on a study to figure out how the county's solar project went sour.  The solar project, which was the brainchild of Morris County politicians and the Morris County Improvement Authority, ultimately cost Sussex County taxpayers millions -- and with the bill set to go as high as $40 million, the pain will be felt in higher property tax bills for many years to come.

Led by Freeholder boss George Graham, a political consultant who counted a number of Hudson County Democrats as his clients, the incoming Freeholder Board hired a New York City law firm to conduct a review of the failed solar project in Sussex County.  As the New Jersey Herald reported on January 28, 2016:

A private investigation of Sussex County's embattled solar project, to be led by ex-State Comptroller Matthew Boxer, gained authorization Wednesday night.

In a 3-2 vote, the county freeholder board approved an agreement hiring Boxer and his firm, Lowenstein Sandler LLP. The review will take up to a year, with the payments by the county to the law firm capped at $500,000.

(Note that the review which was to "take up to a year" is still not completed.)

How did the taxpayers of Sussex County end up on the hook for a $500,000.00 contract to hire a New York City law firm?  Whose idea was it to hire the firm? 

Did the selection process begin in the open, at the Freeholder Board meeting in Newton, or did it take place months earlier at a political campaign meeting about taking over the Freeholder Board, long before the majority of those freeholders voting in favor of it were even elected?

Since handing out the contract, the stated goals of the $500,000.00 study have been somewhat downgraded.  In January 2016, its supporters told the New Jersey Herald (January 28, 2016) that they could "recover $20 million" for Sussex County taxpayers.  By the end of last year however, the Freeholders who supported the study were singing a different tune:  "We've got to finish up and close out the solar process." (Star-Ledger, December 31, 2016)

Now leaked executive session minutes from the Freeholder meeting of September 18, 2014, show that the Board understood exactly who was at fault and how to proceed in order to claw back taxpayers' money.  Even then Freeholder Gail Phoebus, who from the minutes appears to have had some difficulty in comprehending the complex financial arrangements of the solar project, understood who the culprits were:

Understanding who was at fault and how to proceed in order to recover taxpayers' money were the very reasons cited for having the study that is now costing Sussex County taxpayers another half million dollars -- only now, there appears to be no appetite by the Board to get any money back.  On top of this, the Board has continued to employ some of the same consultants and attorneys they blamed for the problem back in 2014 -- 3 years ago!

The uses for the 1603 money are very clearly specified by the United States Treasury Department: 

1603 Program: Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits

The purpose of the 1603 payment is to reimburse eligible applicants for a portion of the cost of installing specified energy property used in a trade or business or for the production of income. A 1603 payment is made after the energy property is placed in service; a 1603 payment is not made prior to or during construction of the energy property.

With a study going on for a year and costing taxpayers $500,000.00, why hasn't this been acted upon?

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...

Skylands attacks solar whistleblower for Graham

The hand of Graham -- Freeholder George Graham -- was obvious in the latest attack from the Skylands crew.  It singles out solar whistleblower Harvey Roseff for abuse and attacks him in a very personal way. 

Curiously, Skylands' abusive post mirrors language used by Freeholder Graham to describe Mr. Roseff, a Sussex County taxpayer who became an activist.  On the issue of the failed solar program, the Skylands group takes the same snarky, overly-defensive posture that the Freeholder Board under Graham does:

Harvey is painfully long winded... He can write endlessly about solar without really explaining it at all. He began pontificating under the Herald comments and even began inserting himself as an expert without any credentials. It took a while, but the Herald finally saw through him and stopped taking his calls. He would contact anyone associated with the county, rambling on about how he knew everything about solar... As Ralph Kramden often would say; “I have a BIG MOUTH!” So does Harvey.

And who but a reporter -- or legal counsel -- would have such inside knowledge of what goes on at the Herald?

Why is citizen Harvey Roseff being attacked?  Well, it is no secret that Roseff has questioned George Graham and the Sussex County Freeholder Board over the delayed and expensive (a half million dollars) report on how the Freeholders allowed Sussex County to lose as much as $40 million in taxpayers' money.

And for this, Harvey Roseff has been attacked by Skylands Tea Party members and the county politicians they answer to.  Sad, isn't it?

Skylands Tea Party meeting turns into therapy session

They could have discussed how to help advance the agenda of President Donald Trump:  Illegal immigration, terrorism, rebuilding America...

But that would have been too positive.  Instead of moving forward, Skylands Tea Party boss Bill Hayden hogged the valuable time of those present at last night's meeting with a long rant about how much he hates conservative writer Bill Winkler. 

Yes.  This turned into one of those "anger therapy" sessions.

Inexplicably, some would say insanely, the Skylands Tea Party group allowed Bill Hayden to attack two guests at their meeting, Assemblyman Parker Space and his wife, GOP State Committeewoman Jill Space.  Jill Space is also the Vice Chair of the Sussex GOP.  She chaired the Trump campaign in Sussex County and was elected to go the Republican National Convention last year as a delegate for Donald Trump.

There should be no substantive policy disagreements between the Tea Party and Assemblyman Space.  But you can't have anger therapy, without the anger...

So Hayden manufactured one.  He demanded that he gets to pick and choose who Assemblyman Space hires to run his campaign.  As it happens, Bill Winkler managed the Assemblyman's successful upset win for Freeholder in 2010, as well as his two successful runs for Assembly in 2013 and 2015.  Here in America, we reward success.

Not in Bill Hayden's world.  Bill Hayden has been pimping for Freeholder George Graham, who has his own political consulting business:

This isn't the first time that the Tea Party in Sussex County has demanded that the LD24 legislators fire Bill Winkler and hire someone else.  In 2011, the same exact shakedown was attempted by the Tea Party on behalf of a former liberal state senator-turned consultant who wanted the business.  They threatened that if they didn't get their way, Mark Quick would run for the Assembly.  Their consultant wasn't hired and Quick ran and got 3 percent of the vote.

Fast-forward to last night and there was the Tea Party -- in the person of Bill Hayden -- demanding that Winkler be fired (and Graham be hired) and there was Mark Quick again, threatening to run for the Assembly.  Haven't any of these people heard of a "restraint of trade" lawsuit?

Restraint of trade is an economic injury that involves interfering with another person’s ability to do business freely.  Restraint of trade is part of antitrust law, but the topic covers a wide range of activities, that include forcing or coercing someone to quit doing business or to change their business so as not to compete in the market; agreeing to fix prices to drive other competitors out of business; tortious interference with a contract or business agreement that negatively affects someone else’s ability to do business freely.  In short, a “restraint of trade” is any activity that hinders someone else from doing business in the way that he would normally do it if there were no restraints.  While federal, state, and local governments can pass laws and regulations that create obstacles for certain kinds of businesses, it is generally considered improper for individuals to restrain one another’s trade in certain ways.  Someone who loses business or suffers another injury may have a tort case against another individual whose trade-restraining behavior injured him.

We don't know if Bill Hayden is in line for a "finder's fee" for strong-arming the legislators into firing Winkler and hiring someone like Graham, but understand that what happened at last night's meeting was recorded and that it is already on its way to legal counsel.  It is quite unambiguous.  While the Skylands Tea Party is certainly free to do whatever it wants, it should avoid becoming a party to Bill Hayden's actions, unless it genuinely wants to be.

Bill Hayden has never met Bill Winkler, but he has "targeted" him:

Hayden, a self-styled "tough guy" posts crap like this on people he's never met but then goes straight to "victimhood" when challenged.  What did Clint Eastwood call this?  "The pussy generation?"

The mantra is "free speech for me but not for you."

(The tutu of victimhood)

When assuming the "tutu" of victimhood, Bill Hayden appears to forget that it was he who posted what he thought was an aerial view of Winkler's home on Facebook -- in the middle of his work day as a state employee.  But with his usual incompetence, Hayden got it all wrong and actually posted the neighboring home of an innocent family with young children. 

Yep, the idiot "targeted" the wrong people.

As Hayden explained it, he was afraid that his boss might see it or that some law enforcement agency might contact the New Jersey Department of Transportation, where he works, so he went to his boss with what he had done.  We don't know what his boss did, but shortly thereafter, Hayden began claiming that he was in trouble, and that Winkler had gone to his boss -- a total fabrication and lie. 

But this is what those who wish to wear the "tutu of victimhood" do.  They always have to blame someone else for their own lack of good sense.  By the way, that's what liberals do.

And that is why Bill Hayden hates Bill Winkler.

And that is why he subjected the members of the Skylands Tea Party to an hour long rant about it.

Someone should tell him that it is a political organization, not a therapy session.

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?