Boxer's office approved the solar scam that he is being paid $500,000 to review

It's too bad that Freeholder George Graham -- the boss who runs the County government -- isn't going to allow county residents to question New York City attorney Matthew Boxer, the guy they are paying $500,000 to tell them what went wrong with the solar project.  Kudos to Freeholder Jonathan Rose for standing up to Graham.  Maybe Rose will be able to form a "transparency" coalition with Freeholders Phil Crabb and Sylvia Petillo? 

A recent letter to current State Comptroller Philip Degnan raises a number of questions that should be raised face-to-face with Mr. Boxer and the people who engineered Boxer's appointment:  Freeholder Graham and SCMUA Commissioner Dan Perez (a New York City lawyer, appointed by Graham, who is now a candidate for Freeholder).  The letter states:

As you are aware, your office was formerly the domain of Mr. Matthew Boxer, the State Comptroller from January 2008 until December 2013.  Before taking this position, Mr. Boxer was an associate with the New York City law firm of Lowenstein Sandler.  After leaving office, he returned to that firm as a partner.

My OPRA request concerned documents related to a scandal in northwest New Jersey that involved a public-private partnership to install solar panels on local government buildings, using federal subsidies.  As it turned out, the private entity responsible for the work was under-capitalized, failed to pay the contractor doing the work, was sued by the contractor, and the project stopped.  The cost to taxpayers in just one of the counties involved, Sussex County, is estimated at upwards of $40 million.

Three counties were involved in this particular project:  Somerset, Morris, and Sussex Counties.  Lacking its own agency, Sussex County worked through the Morris County Improvement Authority (MCIA), although each county made its own individual contracts with the entity, called Sunlight General, a new creation with a board of directors drawn largely from a French bank.

In February 2011, the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Sussex County authorized a shared services agreement with the MCIA to implement the solar project.  In July 2011, the project was sent to the Office of the State Comptroller for review.  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.

Apparently, the project was so fashioned that by October 2011, Sussex County had received just one bid -- from Sunlight General.  And so, in that month, the Sussex County Freeholders awarded the contract to Sunlight General.

The Freeholder Boards of Morris, Somerset, and Sussex Counties all signed agreements -- reviewed by the Office of the State Comptroller -- that used taxpayer-secured debt to back up SunLight General's operations.  Unfortunately, the contracts were poorly written, the expected flow of capital was fanciful, the projects poorly planned and executed.  Allow me to quote from the documents supplied by the federal court:

- SunLight General Capital and its subsidiaries were formed "with virtually no assets, such that they were undercapitalized at the time of formation."

- The SunLight Entities "have drawn on the Public Bond Funds and diverted such funds for non-trust purposes in violation of the New Jersey Trust Fund Statute."

- The SunLight Entities have admitted that "millions of dollars of Public Bond Funds" have been used to "make lease payments" and to "fund the SunLight Entities' required contributions under the Program Documents, and to pay the 'soft' costs (including attorneys' fees) of the Authorities and the SunLight Entities."

- "The SunLight Entities owe Power Partners millions of dollars as a direct beneficiary under the New Jersey Trust Fund Statute and there are no longer sufficient funds in the Public Bond Funds to pay Power Partners and to complete the projects."

- The SunLight Entities "participated in an additional scheme to draw down over $6.3 million in Public Bond Funds and misdirected more than $2.7 million of such funds for non-trust purposes."

- Those who controlled the SunLight Entities treated corporate assets as "their personal piggy banks, repeatedly transferring assets from one entity to the next for the purpose of ensuring that there would be insufficient assets in each entity to satisfy its obligations to Power Partners."

- "The corporate form of the SunLight Entities was used to commit conversion, make fraudulent transfers, and other improper acts."

While noting that all this was before your time, may I ask you a question?  Do you believe that, perhaps, the Office of the State Comptroller let down the taxpayers of Sussex County just a bit?

So Matthew Boxer moves on to his law partnership and the Office of the State Comptroller keeps reviewing what it reviews and the residents of Sussex County are left to deal with the $40 million loss in their (higher) property tax bills.  In March 2015, the Freeholder Boards of both Sussex and Morris Counties reached out to the Office of the State Comptroller and formally requested that the State Comptroller review the project. 

About this time, the name Matthew Boxer resurfaced again, only now it was as part of a proposal to bring in "outside counsel" to review the solar project and what went wrong.  Two members of the Sussex County Freeholder Board -- Gail Phoebus and George Graham -- pushed for Mr. Boxer to be brought in for this purpose.  Below is a memo from attorney Dan Perez (now himself a candidate for Sussex County Freeholder) to then Freeholder Gail Phoebus:

Begin forwarded message:

From: dan@danperezlaw.com
Date: April 12, 2015 at 7:47:23 AM EDT
To: Gail Phoebus <gphoeb@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda

You pick the time and let me know; I am clear all day. How about this for a discussion list (please feel free to change):

1. Catch-up on recent freeholder meeting and other developments

2. Archer & Greiner conflict/possible ethics complaints against Cantalupo (undisclosed representation of Birdsall) and Weinstein (led settlement negotiations without being appointed)

3. OPRA requests and responses, post to a website?

4. McConnell malpractice issues/possible local gov't ethics complaint

5. New law firm to review settlement -- Lowenstein (Boxer), NYC??

6. Wendy Molnar

7. Dan to meet with Phil?

8. Budget/scope/time

9. Response to Crabb column

10. Next steps

---
 Daniel M. Perez, Esq. Law Offices of

            Daniel M. Perez 93 Spring Street, Suite 505 Newton, NJ

            07860 (973) 300-5135 (office) (973) 300-5199 (fax) (201) 303-6209 (cell)

In April 2015, the Office of the State Comptroller turned down both Sussex and Morris Counties' requests to review the solar project.  According to those Freeholders who I have spoken with, no official reason was ever provided.  However, there is an "unofficial" explanation provided in a May 26, 2015, memo from the MCIA to the Morris County Freeholders.  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 with Morris County 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 that Morris County had forwarded to them, it was not going to pursue a further review of the Solar II Program."

So it appears that 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."

The "post-review decision not to review the matter..."  Wow. 

The Office of the State Comptroller's recalcitrance 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 only man to do a review that was to be paid for by fresh taxpayer's money.

And so, it came to pass that 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 only man 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 curious, 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 he came by it.  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 Freeholder -- a respected member of the community in Sussex County and a veteran of the Korean War -- 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.

So the Freeholder wrote to the State Ethics Commission and noted the following:

At the January 27^th, 2016 regular Freeholder meeting, now, Freeholder Director George Graham admitted that he, solely, negotiated this agreement.

He stated that this agreement was negotiated with two phone calls with a Matthew Boxer, Esq.

In 2011 Matthew Boxer was the New Jersey State Comptroller.

Matthew Boxer led a staff responsible for overseeing audits and performance reviews at all levels of New Jersey government. The office audited government finances, examined the efficiency of government programs and scrutinized government contracts.

On August 23, 2011 the State Comptroller's office, after a review, signed off on the procurement of a Photovoltaic Systems Developer with respect to certain local government facilities in the County of Sussex and the RFP as approved for advertisement.

I have been asked by many Sussex County residents if Matthew Boxer has a conflict of interest representing Sussex County as Special Counsel in order to review its participation in the Sussex County Renewable Energy Program.

To which the State Ethics Commission replied:

"Mr. Boxer contacted this office to seek advice regarding whether the post-employment restrictions prohibit him from being involved in a review of the (solar) Program.  Mr. Boxer advised that he did not have any personal involvement in the Office of the State Comptroller's review or approval of Sussex County's procurement related to the Program.  Mr. Boxer also advised that he contacted the Office of the State Comptroller, which performed a search of its records and emails and found no emails, correspondence or other documents indicating that he had any involvement in that office's review of the procurement for the Program.  Based on these facts, the State Ethics Commission concluded that Mr. Boxer was not substantially or directly involved in the Program during his State employment and that the post-employment restrictions therefore do not prohibit him (or derivatively Lowenstein Sandler) from being involved in the present review of the Program on behalf of Sussex County."

I note that the word "facts" is used when "representations" might be more appropriate.  As the State Ethics Commission did not conduct its own review of the Office of the State Comptroller's "records and emails... correspondence... other documents", it is clear that they are simply accepting Mr. Boxer at his word.

It is a bit odd to claim that the person in charge of an office was so lax as to have no knowledge of what was a three-county project involving -- to start -- $100 million.  And that his office reviewed nearly a dozen similar contracts involving many more millions in public money.  Okay. let's accept that Mr. Boxer was a "delegator" without direct, day-to-day knowledge about the office he was responsible for.  How did he come to be recommended as the sole recipient of a $500,000 contract to review what his office failed in reviewing at the start? 

In its reply, the State Ethics Commission expressly invited further inquiry:

"If you have information indicating that Mr. Boxer was substantially and directly involved in the Office of the State Comptroller's review of the procurements related to the Program, please do not hesitate to provide that information to this office for further consideration."

In search of the truth, I sent in an OPRA request that asked for the same documents that the Office of the State Comptroller willingly turned over to Mr. Boxer (as a citizen, after he no longer worked there), according to the statement of the State Ethics Commission.  Mr. Robert Shane, of your office, denied my request -- arguing that it was "over-broad" and that my request "appears to relate to OSC’s statutory obligation to review procurements pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:15C-10.  Please be advised that any such records are exempt from disclosure as advisory, consultative and deliberative material.  This exemption is specifically included in OSC’s enabling legislation at N.J.S.A. 52:15C-10b(5)."   

If so, then we have a situation in which we must be content to take the word of Mr. Boxer.  As he is the only person who appears to have benefitted from this fiasco -- to the tune of a half-million dollars -- that is, indeed, most unfortunate.

It is time for the Freeholders to establish a citizen's commission to investigate this corrupt mess and call those who have benefited to account.  Make someone like Harvey Roseff the chairman and you won't need to spend a half million dollars of taxpayers' money (property tax money!) to get the job done.

Freeholder Graham goes backroom

One year ago, George Graham maneuvered liberal attorney Dan Perez onto the SCMUA (Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority) board and pushed a local Republican out.  Three days after Graham took over as Freeholder Director, he told Rob Jennings, then of the New Jersey Herald, that he was going to replace a Republican incumbent on the SCMUA board with Perez, a contributor to the presidential campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. 

Writing in the Herald, Jennings reported (January 10, 2016):  "Perez was the attorney for then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus during her successful Republican primary campaign for the Assembly... It contributed to the Republican primary defeat of (Freeholder Dennis) Mudrick and the election of new Freeholders Jonathan Rose and Carl Lazzaro on a platform, supported by Graham..."

Freeholder Graham told the Herald:  "Dan Perez is an excellent addition. I think it adds to the board."

But while George Graham made the choice, the business of getting it done was left to incoming Freeholders Carl Lazzaro and Jonathan Rose.  At the subsequent January 13, 2016, meeting of the Sussex County Freeholder Board, Graham had Rose make the motion to approve Perez' appointment to SCMUA, which was seconded by Lazzaro.  Officially, Freeholder George Graham's fingerprints weren't on it at all.

That's how it might work going forward.  Graham is stepping aside as Freeholder Director to concentrate on his political consulting business.  He'll remain a power on the board, but a power behind the scenes, with allies Lazzaro and Rose occupying the positions of Director and Deputy Director of the Freeholder Board.

It doesn't have to be that way.  One or both can start showing a little independence and form a working majority with the two other Freeholders -- Sylvia Petillo and Phil Crabb.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, the meteoric rise of Graham-Phoebus consigliere Dan Perez continues.  From nowhere, he was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College in 2014, then to SCMUA last year.  Now he has his sights set on being a Superior Court Judge.

It seems like only yesterday that Perez was a liberal New York City defense attorney representing the usual causes.  Yes, we remember when his biography bragged about suing the police and representing a man who was "charged with stabbing his wife 92 times."  Perez bragged about representing members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang and a photographer who was arrested numerous times for organizing photography shoots of nude people in the streets of New York City.  Yep, this is the same "artist" who organized the naked protest against Republican Donald Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio:

"An Artist is calling for woman to protest Donald Trump by posing nude at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland... They would be protesting completely nude, as part of a performance art installation..." (Redstatewatcher)

"The (nude women) held circular Mylar mirrors over their heads and reflected light at the city to expose what they view as the naked truth about Republicans." (Wikipedia)

Perez' liberal defense of free expression is hypocritical, given his authoritarian views on free speech.  It seems that if you want to photograph a room full of buttholes that is freedom and cannot be questioned -- heck, our tax dollars have even gone to subsidize such things.  But if you want to question why the government leaders in Andover Township don't follow open records rules or the Open Public Meetings Act or why they won't acknowledge that their town played host to a Nazi camp and Ku Klux Klan rallies -- well if you question these things, you need to be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

The rallying cry in Andover these days is "yes to buttholes, no to blogs."  Kind of sad, but not surprising.  It's a mad, mad world we live in.

Some of Dan Perez' client's artwork.

A citizen victory on county transparency

Kudos to Freeholders Richard Vohden and Phil Crabb who have waged an often lonely battle for transparency at the Freeholder Board meetings.  And to citizen activists Harvey Roseff, Councilwoman Dawn Fantasia, Nathan Orr, Kathy Gorman, Ann Smulewitcz, Michele Guttenberger, Kenneth Collins, among others, who have loudly insisted on county board transparency.  To the New Jersey Herald and Straus News for their coverage of the fight for transparency.  And to Freeholder Jonathan Rose for finally coming home and doing something about it. 

We had faith in Freeholder Rose and we are glad that he finally challenged Freeholder boss George Graham on transparency.  The Herald carried Freeholder Rose's proposal on transparency in its opinion column today:

By a 3-2 vote, the Sussex County freeholders last week rejected a proposal to have their regular meetings videotaped.

Though on the surface their action was disappointing, citizens seeking a more transparent county government should not be dismayed.

...Freeholder Jonathan Rose confirmed late last week that a resolution is being prepared that would have a camera, already owned by the county, set up in the freeholder meeting room to record regular meetings. The video would be tied into the already set-up audio system.

...He intends the recording to be as clean as possible, the only editing to be inserting text of the meeting date and county seal, and if the camera is turned off during recesses or for other reasons. The recording would not be up for any Oscars; no close-ups or zoom-ins would be provided. Rose said that is preferred, as anything beyond the stagnant image may be interpreted as manipulating the recording or injecting bias.

The video would be what one would see if one were standing at the back of the freeholder meeting room.

...The freeholders should put any politicking and posturing aside, approve the resolution next week, and get a good start to a more transparent new year.

Next up: Changing the 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. meeting times, which are not at all convenient for public attendance and participation.

Harvey Roseff expressed the concerns of many when he commented on the Herald's opinion column:

"This won't work for the public good. It's but again a backroom maneuver, now to save face and continue the pretense of transparency. It follows the dark spirit of Counsel Williams attempt last week to keep Freeholder meeting video records outside of the county controlled OPRA process. 

...SECTV is a long lived, HIGHLY CAPABLE, FOCUSED media company that provides FREE live streaming capability, serves a broad audience and can deliver a DVD for the County to archive and post to internet. By law, it must provide this service free to citizens who granted it a monopoly. The internal service Freeholders Graham and Rose now promote has never delivered live streaming, is not focused on media delivery and bills the taxpayer even when failing to deliver old technology, simple audio recordings. Maybe the NJ Herald should team with SECTV and drive eyeballs to its website."

Ann Smulewicz added her thoughts: 

"Graham, Lazzaro and Rose have made their positions on keeping the public in the dark known by the way they voted. Ms. Dawn Fantasia has provided evidence that the public has a right to video. It appears that there is an effort to do that. Graham, Lazzaro and Rose have shown they are not trustworthy to be involved in video taping of Freeholder meetings. I'm in favor of the group that is responding to the public's call for transparency to be in charge of the video taping, hopefully in concert with Service Electric Cable, to make the freeholder meetings available to the public.

Thank you Freeholders Crabb and Vohden for your efforts to 'drain the swamp'."

SussexCounty.News is planning to videotape the Freeholder Board meetings as well.  This redundancy will work in the public's favor, because the static recording provided by Freeholder Rose will supply an important benchmark that will allow the SussexCounty.News reporter to interview citizens who make the time to attend these meetings for their perspectives.  This layering of perspectives -- reporting by traditional media like the Herald and Straus News, Freeholder Rose's static recording, and SussexCounty.News' video plus citizen commentary on the meeting -- will create a very open and accessible Board. 

Just one thing is missing and we agree with Harvey Roseff on this -- put it on cable TV so that the maximum number of people can see it.  As Roseff points out, it is free and it is usual and customary in towns everywhere in America and in democracies across the globe.  Why not in Sussex County?

Great Ideas for Transparency in Sussex County

A recent story in the New Jersey Herald (December 15, 2016) by reporter David Danzis highlighted the about face by Freeholder boss George Graham on the issue of allowing Sussex County's citizens to see what goes on at the Freeholder Board meetings.  Having campaigned on "transparency", the majority of the freeholders are now on record as opposing it.  Danzis reported:

The Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders voted to reject a resolution that would have requested a local cable television provider record and broadcast regularly-scheduled public meetings.

The resolution was a formal request of Service Electric Cable TV of NJ, Inc. to provide broadcasting services pursuant to federal law concerning Public, Educational, and Governmental Access Channels. The cable provider would have subcontracted a videographer to attend the meetings. The service would have been free of charge to the county. The meeting would have aired at least twice on SECTV's public channel.

The vote on Wednesday evening was 3-2 with Freeholder Director George Graham, Freeholder Deputy Director Carl Lazzaro and Freeholder Jonathan Rose against and Freeholders Phillip Crabb and Richard Vohden in favor.

...Following the vote, several members of the public voiced their disapproval of the freeholder's decision.

"I think the vote you took on cable TV was, I'm thinking, absurd," a Sparta resident in attendance commented. "You had an opportunity to get this thing to reach some additional people ... I don't know why you wouldn't vote ‘Yes' for that."

Harvey Roseff, of Byram, said he found it "absurd" that the issue has taken months to be brought up only to be voted down.

"There's absolutely no problem here," Roseff said. "It's already done all over New Jersey. You're not breaking any new ground. You just don't want to do it. There's a core group of people here pretending it's a complicated matter -- it just isn't."

Posted under the story in the Herald, a number of people commented with good insights and proposals for moving forward.  Among them were the following:

"No reasonable person would say that free TV airing of a meeting is worthless. Plenty of people still have Service Electric cable. It's funny that the same people that voted no are the ones who ran saying the meeting times would be changed so more people could attend. It is also the group that authorized $500,000 to be spent on an investigation that the board refuses to inform the public about..." (Nathan Orr)

"The following information is taken directly from the NJ League of Municipalities website, and can be found at http://www.njslom.org/magart_1208_pg74.html

'Municipal officials are often concerned about the videotaping of municipal meetings by the public, both because of the possible disruption of the meeting and because some residents attending the meetings do not want to be videotaped. New Jersey case law makes it clear that a member of the public cannot be prohibited from videotaping a municipal meeting. In the case of Tarus v. Pine Hill, Docket No.a-93-05(2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court said “…we hold that, subject to reasonable restrictions, members of the public have a common law right to videotape municipal proceedings in New Jersey. Our conclusion is supported by an interwoven tapestry of jurisprudence and policy that demonstrates both the value of open government and the right to document governmental proceedings.'  As for concerns over the privacy of members of the public, the Court said 'Although some citizens may be fearful of video cameras, we find that consideration insufficient to deny the right to videotape. Further, no right of privacy protects a citizen’s public comments.'

It appears from the information above that this SECTV proposal can be circumvented; these meetings may be recorded by any member of the public, with additional information on the website including the caveat that such recordings may in no way disrupt the meeting. This NJ Supreme Court case law may open the floodgates to live streaming, i.e. Facebook Live or Periscope, to provide instant, real-time, open access to the greater public.

County citizens, including myself, have spoken at meetings of the freeholders in order to request a later start time to allow for greater public attendance and participation. Sussex County is vastly a 'commuter county', with a 5 pm start time prohibiting many from regular participation. I commend Freeholders Crabb and Vohden for recognizing these challenges and for supporting a valid solution. I do not fault these gentlemen for not acting on this issue prior to now; demand for technology is swiftly evolving, and it is foolhardy to not accept a current offer of this kind in a timely manner--free of charge to the taxpayers--in order to bring these meetings to a larger audience. 'Grandstanding', although obnoxious, is certainly protected under the first amendment, and can be witnessed from both sides of the dais; fear of such behavior is an invalid reason for rejecting this proposal, as is the assertion that because of the limited scope and sequence of airings, recording and rebroadcasting has no intrinsic value. I also do not see anywhere in state statutes where the right to record may be rejected because it may '...not take into account the entire county'. I urge the Board of Chosen Freeholders to revisit this issue, as the optics of this rejection does not bode well if the goal of the board is transparency." (Dawn Fantasia)

"Necessity is the mother of invention. President-Elect Donald Trump figured that out when he took to Twitter to circumvent the media and reach out to the voters directly. Someone needs to step up and do the same in Sussex County." (Ann Smulewicz)

"I remember reading George Graham is looking to be Freeholder Director for a 2nd straight year. I also have heard George Graham is waiting to become Gail Phoebus’ Chief of Staff, which would make George a 'double dipper' for taxpayer funded positions. I was wondering if this was announced at the Freeholder meeting, because if not, and George & Gail are planning this, when are his colleagues and the Sussex County taxpayers supposed to find out?

...The 5PM start time does not allow normal and most out-of-county workers to attend Freeholder meetings. I believe this was something else Mr. Rose was going to address to make meetings more open and transparent to the public.

...To the Sparta resident’s point this would give the ability to reach more residents county wide and could even be a positive as people could actually find out what services are available to them. Believe it or not, not everyone has a computer to look things up on a website, especially the elderly. I’ll bet they have TV.  Besides transparency, it’s called communication. What is “the right way to do it”? Sounds more to me like fear of communication and this type of openness would bring more questions from the public to this Freeholder board."  (Kathleen Gorman)

"Here is yet another instance of why taxes are high and services low in Sussex County. If last night's meeting had been aired, instead of being held at the usual and uninviting hour of 5pm, one would have learned that an employee union contract was approved without discussion or the public knowing what the new expense will be. One would have seen that Freeholders delayed for 26 months to do the minutes of a critical solar program closed session meeting. A most controversial Hopatcong development project was approved, but a resident asked that a proper planning process first be followed before a vote. All over New Jersey and the nation, government meetings are televised and placed on the web to bring healthier governing. Six months of pretense and delay, and we get not a solution for more transparency in government, but legal blather, and hollow excuses, to make sure it won't happen in Sussex County." (Harvey Roseff)

Vohden feeling the heat on solar investigation

Freeholder Richard Vohden loves to tell stories about his days in construction as a union operator.  If Vohden's colorful stories are to be believed, then he should know full well that law enforcement NEVER comments on active investigations.

At last evening's meeting of the Freeholder Board, Vohden suggested that the Freeholders hold off commissioning any independent county investigation into the Sussex solar scam that ripped-off county taxpayers for millions, until after the status of possible state and federal criminal investigations is determined.  That means holding off on a county investigation indefinitely.

Vohden is being dishonest and he knows it.  He told the Freeholder Board that he made a round of telephone calls to the state and federal law enforcement agencies and understands from those calls that some kind of action is underway.  What he is trying to prevent is an independent county investigation.

The reason Sussex County needs a county investigation is simple.  The solar scam cost $88 million.  Sussex taxpayers are on the hook for $24 million and they just borrowed another $7 million and the bill for that is coming due shortly.  It will likely cause a sharp increase in property taxes. 

It is not the job of these law enforcement agencies to protect the interests of Sussex County.  They could even cite Sussex County officials for malfeasance and who would pay for that? The federal authorities will try to claw back the federal money involved in the scam.  Who is looking out for Sussex County taxpayers? 

That's where an independent county investigation comes in.  It is a fact-finding mission to build a case to get some of those millions back through civil action. 

The FBI and State Attorney General's office are looking for criminal indictments.  That may punish those responsible, but it won't get our money back.  That is why the investment in an independent county investigation is money well spent.

Freeholder Vohden appears to be arguing that we simply accept the screwing, pay the money, don't ask questions, keep paying the money, and do nothing to get our money back.  That is a weak, panty-waist approach in our opinion. 

Freeholders Richard Vohden and Phil Crabb voted for the solar bail out with taxpayers' money with no intention of ever trying to find out if the Wall Street manipulators, lawyers, and consultants did something wrong.  No attempt to recover a dime of the millions wasted.  They are part of the mess and bear some responsibility for where we are today.  Freeholders George Graham, Jonathan Rose, and Carl Lazzaro opposed the bailout and campaigned with the PROMISE that there would be an independent county investigation.

Back before the June 2015 primary, even Vohden claimed to support an independent investigation because back then he was trying to deny the existence of state and federal criminal investigations.  Why the flip-flop Richie? 

It is important for the Freeholders who campaigned on the PROMISE of an independent county investigation to keep that PROMISE.  Voters are already skeptical of elected officials.  Don't give them a reason to believe the worst of politicians.

Update on Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:15PM by Sussex County Watchdog

Simple proof as to why Freeholder Vohden is either stone cold stupid or trying to obstruct an investigation.  Go to the FBI website (www.FBI.gov) and you will find this list of elementary-school level basic information from the FBI for dealing with the FBI:

Search Tips

The FBI does not investigate all kinds of criminal activity. To see the categories of federal laws that the FBI does investigate, see our What We Investigate webpage.

• If you are looking for information about yourself or a case you are involved in, you must submit a Privacy Act request.

• The FBI does not comment on all current, ongoing cases. See our field press releases for public information on our investigations.

• The FBI is limited in the amount of information and photos it can provide on wanted fugitives and missing persons. We also do not investigate all fugitives or missing persons in the United States; many cases are handled by local authorities or other federal agenices.

• To find crime statistics in your area, please see our Crime Statistics webpage.

• The FBI does not have a national e-mail address for public questions or comments. Some of our local FBI offices, however, do have their own e-mail addresses. See our Contact Us page for more contact information.

• To find high resolution photos, go to our Photo Gallery.

• If you are looking for an FBI job application or open vacancies, go to the FBI Jobs website.

• If you wish to talk directly to an FBI representative, please call (202) 324-3000.