Some questions for the “transparency” committee…

With the fevered effort of a dog chasing its own tail, a so-called “transparency” committee (made up of Freeholder boss George Graham and his “entourage” to watch over a Freeholder Board dominated by Graham) has predictably produced a document claiming that said Freeholder Board is “transparent”.  Hey, they do this kind of crap in third world countries – appointing yourself and your cronies to keep watch on yourself and your cronies:

“The committee to watch the committee will be made up of members of the committee.”

Well, Sussex County isn’t the third world nation of Grahamistan.  Rather than spend any more tax dollars patting themselves on the back, they need to go back and answer the BIG question about the recent pissing away of $514,000 of taxpayers’ money and their continued failure to come up with a plan and to stop running out the clock on taking legal action against those who perpetrated the solar scam.

What is the BIG question?

Well, the truth is there are a number of BIG questions regarding this debacle.  But one really BIG, nagging question is the one that has been asked again and again by Byram Councilman Harvey Roseff:  Who selected Boxer?  How was the contract negotiated?  And was the Boxer report itself a cover-up of Boxer’s office's role in the solar scam?

Remember the Freeholder Board’s reliance on the report by New York City lawyer Matthew Boxer to assign blame and set a legal course of action.  It will be remembered that Boxer himself was a player in the scandal, his office having signed-off on the solar project and so ensuring that it would move forward with the State’s seal of approval.  We all know the result:  Suffer the taxpayers.

For those of you for whom this is a bit foggy, let’s go through it all, once again.  In February 2011, the Sussex County Freeholder Board authorized a shared services agreement with the Morris County Improvement Authority (MCIA) to implement the solar project.  In July 2011, the project was sent to the Office of the State Comptroller for review. At the time, Matthew Boxer was the State Comptroller and responsible for that office.  After reviewing all the project documents, the following month (August 2011), the project was given the okay by the Office of the State Comptroller. Based on this review, the Sussex County Freeholders went forward with the project.  

Later, in January 2016, Matthew Boxer would be given a no-bid contract to review the solar project that his office had signed-off on in August 2011.  How that contract came to be awarded to Mr. Boxer remains a mystery.

If you read Matthew Boxer's 62-page report on the solar scandal – which cost Sussex County taxpayers $500,000 ($8,064 per page) – he never once mentions the role of his former office, the Office of the State Comptroller, in the approval process.  The word "comptroller" doesn't appear in his report, even once, despite the central role it played in the scandal and in spite of the fact that Matthew Boxer ran the office when it was responsible for reviewing the solar contract.

In his 62-page report, Mr. Boxer lays bare his office's misfeasance:

"The ability of the County to intercede or assist in the dispute between Sunlight and PPM was further hindered by the County’s lack of legal standing in the operative contract documents.  For example, the County had no contract with 

Sunlight, only the MCIA did.  The County was even further removed contractually from PPM; neither the County nor the MCIA had a contract with PPM, only Sunlight did... In short, the County was underwriting the Solar Project, but was not in a position to affect it or protect it.

Typically, when a contractor on a public construction project is unable or unwilling, for financial reasons or otherwise, to complete the project, the public entity may resort to the performance bond that has been posted by the contractor.  A performance bond is a commitment made by an insurance company or bank, known as a 'surety,' to compensate the contracting entity financially or otherwise carry out the completion of the project in cases where the contractor defaults on its obligations...   In the case of the Solar Project, a surety bond was posted that contained a commitment from a well-known, national insurance company.  While the bond technically complied with legal requirements, the terms of the specific bond that was posted made the County’s invocation of the bond difficult, if not impossible.  First, despite the massive financial commitment the County had made on this project, the County was not listed as a beneficiary (known as the 'obligee') on the bond.  Instead, the MCIA and a Sunlight-related entity were listed as the obligees.  Thus, the County had no explicit standing to invoke the bond or to seek compensation under the bond.  It was reliant in this regard on the MCIA."  

In August 2011, Matthew Boxer's office (the Office of the State Comptroller) approved the terms of the 196-page contract. Below is a the table of contents of the contract forwarded to and approved by the Office of the State Comptroller:

THE MORRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

MORRIS COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM 

(COUNTY OF SUSSEX PROGRAM), SERIES 2011

__________________

______

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

For a Developer of Photovoltaic Systems with respect to certain Local Government Facilities in the County of Sussex, New Jersey

Dated [Post Date] 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1          Notice of RFP  .................................................................................................... E1-1

Exhibit 2          Respondent Checklist ........................................................................................ E2-1

Exhibit 3          Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program .................................................... E3-1

ARTICLE I

INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, FINANCING OPTIONS

AND DEFINITIONS

Section 1.1      Introduction and Overview .................................................................................... 1

Section 1.2      Financing Options ................................................................................................... 9

Section 1.3      Authority Financing Option .................................................................................... 9

Section 1.4      Company Services Under the Authority Financing Option .................................. 21

Section 1.5      Company Financing Option .................................................................................. 21

Section 1.6      Company Services Under the Company Financing Option................................... 23

Section 1.7      Material Changes to RFP....................................................................................... 24

Section 1.8      Definitions............................................................................................................ 24

ARTICLE II

INITIAL ACTION BY RESPONDENTS

Section 2.1      RFP........................................................................................................................ 28

Section 2.2      Authority Contact Persons ................................................................................... 28

Section 2.3      Respondent Registration ...................................................................................... 29

ARTICLE III

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

Section 3.1      RFP and Notice of RFP .......................................................................................... 30

Section 3.2      Pre-Proposal Submission Meeting........................................................................ 30

Section 3.3      Site Tours of Local Unit Facilities .......................................................................... 30

Section 3.4      Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program ....................................................... 32

ARTICLE IV

CERTAIN INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSALS

Section 4.1      Pricing and Other Terms of Forms A-1-a and A-1-b ............................................. 34

Section 4.2      Renewable Energy Projects .................................................................................. 45

Section 4.3      Reserved............................................................................................................... 45

ARTICLE V

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Section 5.1      Substantive Requirements for Proposals ............................................................. 46

Section 5.2      Permitted Inclusions in Proposals ........................................................................ 48

Section 5.3      Proposals Governed by Applicable Law ............................................................... 49

Section 5.4      Procedural Requirements and Other Matters for Proposals ............................... 50

Section 5.5      Clarification of Proposals ...................................................................................... 54

Section 5.6      No Tax Advice Offered .......................................................................................... 55

ARTICLE VI

AWARD TO SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT

Section 6.1      Submitted Proposals ............................................................................................. 56

Section 6.2      Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 56

Section 6.3      Basis of Award ...................................................................................................... 58

Section 6.4      Rejection of Proposals........................................................................................... 59

Section 6.5      Conditional Award................................................................................................. 59

ARTICLE VII

CERTAIN GENERAL MATTERS

Section 7.1      Exhibit 2  Checklist ............................................................................................... 60

Section 7.2      Proposal and Construction Bonding ..................................................................... 61

Section 7.3      Insurance.............................................................................................................. 65

Section 7.4      Indemnification.................................................................................................... 66

Section 7.5      Labor...................................................................................................................... 66

Section 7.6      Licenses and Laws.................................................................................................. 71

Section 7.7      Background Check…………………………………………………………….....72

APPENDICES

Appendix A     Attach Forms of Program Documents and RFP Authorizing Resolution............. A-1

      Company Documents:

Appendix A-1              PPA............................................................................................ A-1-1

Appendix A-2              Company Lease Agreement..................................................... A-2-1

Appendix A-3              Company Continuing Disclosure Agreement........................... A-3-1

Appendix A-4              Company Pledge Agreement.................................................... A-4-1

Appendix A-5              Form of Master Local Unit License Agreement........................ A-5-1

      Other Program Documents:

Appendix A-6              Authority Bond Resolution....................................................... A-6-1

Appendix A-7              County Guaranty Agreement................................................... A-7-1

      Authority RFP Authorizing Resolution:

Appendix A-8              Authority Resolution adopted July 20, 2011 

            ........... Authorizing Issuance of RFP..................................................... A-8-1

Appendix B     Description of Projects......................................................................................... B-1

Appendix B-1              Renewable Energy Projects...................................................... B-1-1

                                          Conceptual Site Plans

                                          Site Roof Warranty Information

Appendix B-2              Reserved (No Capital Improvement Projects).......................... B-2-1

Appendix B-3              Estimated Load Data by Local Unit Facility............................... B-3-1

Appendix C     Scope of Work and Technical Specifications ..................................................... C-1

Appendix D     Forms to be Included in Exhibit A of Proposals................................................. D-1

Appendix D-A-1-a[i]       Proposal Form A-1-a;Authority Financing 

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet................................................ D-A-1-A-1

Appendix D-A-1-b[ii]      Proposal Form A-1-b; Company Financing 

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet …………………………….D-A-2-B-1

Appendix D-A-2          Proposal Form A-2; Respondent Information / 

                                    Cover Letter Form…………………………………………D-A-2-1

Appendix D-A-3          Proposal Form A-3; Consent of Surety and Surety Form..... D-A-3-1

Appendix D-A-4[iii]        Proposal Form A-4; Agreement for Proposal Security 

                                    In Lieu of Proposal Bond....................................................... D-A-4-1

Appendix D-A-5[iv]        Proposal Form A-5; Proposal Bond....................................... D-A-5-1

Appendix D-A-6          Proposal Form A-6; Ownership Disclosure Statement......... D-A-6-2

Appendix D-A-7          Proposal Form A-7; Non-Collusion Affidavit......................... D-A-7-1

Appendix D-A-8          Proposal Form A-8; Consent to Investigation....................... D-A-8-1

Appendix D-A-9          Proposal Form A-9; Statement of Respondent’s 

                                    Qualifications........................................................................ D-A-9-1

Appendix D-A-10        Proposal Form A-10; Acknowledgement of 

                                    Receipt of Addenda (if any)................................................ D-A-10-1

Appendix D-A-11        Proposal Form A-11; Sealed Proposal Checklist 

                                    (See Exhibit 2)..................................................................... D-A-11-1

Appendix D-A-12[v]       Proposal Form A-12; Authorization for Background 

                                    Check................................................................................... D-A-12-1

Appendix E     Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule (including sources and uses)............. E-1

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Basic Lease Payment Schedule, allocable to Series 2011 Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Sources and Uses, Series 2011 Bonds

Appendix F     County Deficiency Option..................................................................................... F-1

                              Option F-1

                              Option F-2

In light of his office's blatant failures, Matthew Boxer should be asked the following question: Do you believe that the Office of the State Comptroller let down the taxpayers of Sussex County?

In April 2015, the Office of the State Comptroller turned down Sussex County's request to review the solar project.  No official reason was ever provided.  However, there is an "unofficial" explanation provided in a May 26, 2015, memo from the MCIA.  It goes as follows:

"The County is still awaiting a written letter from the Office of the State Comptroller, as a follow up to the phone conference... on April 27, 2015.  In the absence of the written response, and as a reminder, the State representatives (OSC) advised the County that it undertook an internal review of the Solar II Program and conducted its own analysis and evaluation of the Solar II Program.  Following this review process, the Comptroller's Office concluded that, based upon the information... forwarded to them, it was not going to pursue a further review of the Solar II Program."

It seems the Office of the State Comptroller had conducted a review of the solar project it had signed-off on, but was unwilling to share said review. The memo continued:

"The Comptroller's Office noted several factors in its post-review decision not to review the matter further:

a. Noting that the Solar Programs and original agreements were a local policy decision, approved by the County Freeholders, and;

b. That in the view of the Comptroller's Office, both the change in the SREC Market, as well as the legal dispute between the developer and the contractor (SunLight/MasTec) contributed to the Solar II Program not proceeding as originally expected."

A "post-review decision not to review the matter...”  Mr. Boxer needs to explain why.

The Office of the State Comptroller's refusal to share the review that they had already conducted or to take that review further was a loss to the taxpayers of Sussex County, but a boon to former State Comptroller Matthew Boxer, who was now being touted as the onlyman to do a review that was to be paid for by fresh taxpayer's money.

In January 2016 a new Freeholder Board in Sussex County – now controlled by the very same individuals who had been for months advocating for the selection of Matthew Boxer as the onlyman to review the solar project – handed Matthew Boxer a contract for $500,000 to conduct said review.

The manner in which this contract was provided to Mr. Boxer was unusual, and remains unexplained to this day.  In a letter, dated January 19, 2016, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to Mr. Boxer's firm inquiring how Boxer obtained the contract.  Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Mr. Boxer,

On New Years’ Eve, Dec 31, 2015, I received a phone call, about 5:00 PM, informing me that a resolution had been submitted to the Sussex County Clerk of the Board regarding an agreement with Lowenstein Sandler, LLC to provide professional services to conduct a review of the facts and circumstances involved in the Sussex County Renewable Energy Program.

This was the first time I had any knowledge of this negotiation and agreement.

I spoke to our Freeholder Director, the other sitting Freeholders, our County Administrator, our County Council, our Clerk of the Board, our County Treasurer, our Director of the Department of Central and Shared Services, our Purchasing Agent, and our assistant purchasing agent. 

None of these individuals, except Freeholder George Graham, admitted to having any knowledge of these negotiations, conversations, meetings or agreements with your law firm before 5:00 PM on New Years’ Eve 2015. 

...I believe that the governing body has had no part in negotiating an agreement with your firm.

 I would like to know, and now ask, who represented Sussex County in these negotiations, especially the negotiation of the 'blended' hourly rate and the understanding that the Board of Chosen Freeholders has provided that fees are not to exceed $500,000.00? "

To this day, this gentleman – who has since retired from the Freeholder Board – has never received the courtesy of a reply.  Why not? And note that, at the time, this Freeholder – as a member of the Board – was Mr. Boxer's client.  What fears would lead Mr. Boxer to ignore a perfectly legitimate request by his client?

Sussex County taxpayers lost over $20 million in the solar scandal.  Then they paid another half million dollars on a 62-page report authored by one of key players in the scandal – and nobody can say how this lawyer got hired!  Now that report is going to be used as the roadmap for future legal action by Sussex County that could cost taxpayers millions more in legal bills (and maybe let the culprits off the hook).

Councilman Roseff is right to raise questions.  These are basic questions that need to be answered… before any more taxpayers’ money is spent. 

---

[i]Required if Proposal utilizes Authority Financing Option.

[ii]Required if Proposal utilizes Company Financing Option.

[iii]Provide EITHER (i) Form A-4 (Proposal Funds) or (ii) Form A-5 (Proposal Bond); found in Appendices D-A-4 or D-A-5, as applicable.  See Section 7.2(a) of RFP.

[iv]See prior footnote.

[v]Provided by Successful Bidder only.  To be supplied upon award of Successful Bidder.

Freeholders gave raises to 50 insiders... stiffed regular workers

If you want to know why the county workers who plow the snow and fix the roads are so up in arms, consider this:  What were Freeholders Rose and Lazzaro thinking to be in the middle of contract negotiations with the county's blue-collar union workers, telling them you need to hold-the-line on spending, while handing out big raises to 50 of your white-collar cronies?   

Are these guys stupid, clueless, arrogant, or all three?

Actually, it is much simpler than that.  They do as Freeholder Boss George Graham tells them, and he is in the middle of doing some serious Empire Building.  Like taking over the Sheriff's Department, so he can turn it into the kind of patronage den they have back in Hudson County, where Graham, a former Democrat Party political consultant, ran campaigns for the Mayor of Bayonne and the like.

A recent letter from a reader explains it:

SOURCE: Freeholder Minutes, May 9, 2018

Now there is a justifiable anger from those county employees who have not been on the receiving end of the largesse of Freeholders Graham, Rose, and Lazzaro. For the first time in memory, the CWA employees union made an endorsement and endorsed their opponents. Such is the anger out there. 

It is clear that the three Freeholders have lost the moral high ground by handing out raises to their friends.  They cannot be agents for fiscal responsibility while they behave in such an irresponsible manner.  Perhaps two new freeholders, without the baggage of having taken care of their cronies, can argue on behalf of the taxpayers, for fiscal restraint, that we are all taxpayers and in this together?

Perhaps they can.  Because the incumbents certainly cannot. 

Freeholder Rose is supporting anti-gun candidate John McCann. What's up with that?

Maybe the Tea Party is going soft?  

At Freeholder Jonathan Rose's fundraiser last month, the young libertarian got up and formally threw his support to John McCann, formerly of the Democrat Bergen County Sheriff's office, and now a GOP candidate for Congress.  Among those present at Freeholder Rose's announcement was former Franklin Councilman Dave Fanale, a controversial figure who resigned from the Council after leading a particularly disturbing anti-police campaign. 

Rose's support for McCann, a decidedly liberal Republican on issues like abortion and the Second Amendment, came at the explicit direction of Freeholder Boss George Graham, who also instructed his gal Maria Alampi to put together an NRA-type event for McCann, in order to create the impression among pro-gun Republicans in Sussex County that McCann shares their views.  This follows what Graham did for Dan Perez last year.  Perez, a liberal Democrat running for Sussex County Freeholder against Republican Herb Yardley, enjoyed the support of Graham, Alampi, and the Freeholders Graham controls -- Jonathan Rose and Carl Lazzaro. 

Strangely enough, at last night's meeting of the Skylands Tea Party, none of those questioned why Freeholder Rose is endorsing John McCann for Congress over conservative Steve Lonegan, a Tea Party favorite.  Members of Skylands Tea Party have first-hand knowledge of McCann's refusal to fill out the NRA questionnaire to reveal to the pro-Second Amendment community where he stands on the issues. 

McCann also refused to fill out the New Jersey Right-to-Life questionnaire, leaving his exact position on that issue in doubt, although McCann has described himself variously as "personally Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" on abortion.  What is McCann concerned the voters will find out? 

Why Jonathan Rose -- who claims to favor transparency -- should support such a murky character is open to interpretation.

As for Rose's running-mate and fellow Freeholder Carl Lazzaro, he has yet to express a preference for either McCann or Lonegan.  Lazzaro spoke at last evening's Tea Party meeting but saved his attacks for Sheriff Mike Strada, who is suing the Freeholder Board and those three named Freeholders -- Graham, Rose, and Lazzaro -- for wasting taxpayers' money and interfering in the operations of his department for political ends.

What all this amounts to is a pay-day for Freeholder Boss George Graham, who maintains a political consulting business as a principal source of income.  Graham appears to have delivered the Tea Party to McCann -- along with Freeholder Rose and the Alampi wing of the NRA... and this is the amazing thing... despite McCann's refusal to tell the NRA where he stands on gun rights.  A remarkable feat indeed.

Freeholder Graham tries to pull fast one on taxpayers

Sussex County Freeholder boss George Graham is desperate to change the subject in advance of the Freeholder Board's upcoming September 13th meeting. Remember that at the Board's last meeting, Freeholder Graham wouldn't allow public comment at a session devoted to the $500,000 "review" of the solar project.

Taxpayers were made to grin and bear the fact that in January 2016, Freeholder Graham hired the same lawyer to review the project whose office had signed-off on the project in 2011.  Graham is desperate to hide the fact that this lawyer was deeply conflicted, in the opinion of many. 

To get Graham's "version" out, the Freeholder boss turned to his old pal Bill Hayden, a Trenton-based bureaucrat at the New Jersey Department of Transportation.  Hayden, who ran for office in June, is under some stress at work for allegedly running his blog on state time and posting threats about those associated with the Sussex County Republican Party. 

To get around this, Hayden's blog announced that it was "under new management" and then promptly went back to doing what the state told him not to do.  Hey, when you are at work -- collecting a salary, benefits, and a pension courtesy of the taxpayers of New Jersey -- you should do what you are supposed to do. . . work!

Taking a page out of convicted Bridgegate felon David Wildstein's book, the blog announced that a new editor named "Dan Haines" was now writing the stories.  In fact -- just like Wildstein's "Wally Edge" (a long dead former New Jersey politician), "Daniel Haines" is long dead too.  He was the 14th Governor of New Jersey (1843-45).  He was born in New York City and died in Hamburg, Sussex County in 1877.  The Facebook page of "editor" Dan Haines has him as being born in New York City and currently residing in Hamburg.  Yes, these idiots are not much on imagination. 

Oh, and Governor Haines was a Democrat.  Having a long-dead Democrat politician attack Sussex County Republicans makes a lot of sense, when you remember that George Graham was himself a Democrat -- a Hudson County Democrat, where the dead regularly vote!  Yep, boss Graham sure does a lot of switching --from Democrat to Republican back to Democrat and now to Republican again.  Want to bet what he'll be if Democrat Phil Murphy wins the Governor's office in November?

So the "new management" thing is a lie.  We expect other lies to follow, in what promises to be a sad attempt by Freeholder boss Graham to change the subject from why he wasted $500,000 on a report that nobody is allowed to question in public. 

It's sad because it won't work.  The taxpayers of Sussex County are smarter than boss Graham and will demand to know why a 62-page report  -- costing Sussex County taxpayers $500,000 ($8,064 per page) -- never once mentions the role of the office that signed-off on the project.  And why Graham hired the lawyer who ran that office to do the review.  It's the $500,000 question (actually $518,000 and rising) and the people want to know.

Is Sussex County looking to sell its landfill?

The manner in which the George Graham-dominated Sussex County Freeholder Board has handled the Solar debacle has cost county property taxpayers dearly.  This year's property tax increase is a harbinger of things to come.

As solar activist Harvey Roseff has pointed out time and again, the money produced from the solar program will never cover the cost and the indebtedness of the project.  Solar "underperformance" was always supposed to be the risk of the developer -- not the taxpayers -- so why did Graham hire back the vendors responsible for leaving county taxpayers holding that debt?

After the county Freeholder Board's special meeting to find budget fat last week, David Danzis of the New Jersey Herald reported that "a nearly two-hour-long special meeting of the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders did not yield any significant changes to the 2017 county budget."

Some of the people on that freeholder board have openly talked about finding enough fraud, waste, and abuse to fund multi-billion dollar programs to pay for building and construction projects or indeed, the state's entire transportation infrastructure.  But when it came time to scrutinize their own budget they found... nothing.  Not one significant cut.

So it comes as no surprise that Watchdog has learned that a waste management company has contracted with a firm in Sussex County to explore the purchase of the County landfill.  Unwilling or unable to make spending cuts, the county appears to be preparing for a combination of property tax increases and selling off assets.

Watchdog intends to pass specific information along to reporters at the New Jersey Herald and Star-Ledger, so that they have the opportunity to run down the story and get the full details to the taxpayers of Sussex County.  Newspapers should be more effective at doing this than a blog.  There is something to be said for having a reporter show up with a microphone.  Let's see if it happens.  In the meantime, we will continue to keep our ears to the ground to keep you updated.

There is certainly a swamp that needs draining.  A county government swamp full of Hudson County Democrats who are clothed "Republican" for convenience.  And now they are attempting to extend their influence by taking legislative seats away from the GOP in Sussex County.

Stay tuned...