Why does Sussex County pay its administrator more than more populated counties do?

The Sussex County Freeholder majority of Jonathan Rose, Carl Lazzaro, and Boss George Graham reward their cronies – while they continue to piss on average county workers.  Take the County Administrator as an example.

The current County Administrator was installed by Boss Graham and the boys at a salary that is over-sized for the population of Sussex County.  But that is okay by them, because this guy follows the script they hand him to the letter.  We’re concerned actually, because if Boss Graham ever stopped short, the county administrator might find his head lodged up Graham’s backside.

Sussex County has a population of 142,000 and falling.  But its new county administrator pockets $180,000 plus a packet of perks and benefits that would choke a horse.

On the other hand, Bergen County, with a population that rivals some states (approx. 939,000) pays its county administrator just $171,182. 

Essex County – with Newark in it and all the problems that come with a big urban area (population: approx. 796,000) – its county administrator makes $142,640. 

Hudson County – with Jersey City – and a population of 677,983, pays its county administrator $167,028.  And this guy has been on the job for decades. 

Another populous (approx. 555,000) county, Union, pays its county administrator $172,000.

Morris County, population 498,423, has a county administrator who earns $171,844. 

Passaic County, population 507,945, pays its county administrator $177,012. 

Neighboring Warren County (population: approx.. 106,000) pays its county administrator $143, 235 – and he’s been on the job since 1999! 

Smaller counties tend to pay less for their county administrators, on the order of Salem ($80,000) or Cape May ($110,000).  So why do we pay so much, here in Sussex County? 

Well, boys will be boys – or rather, the boys will be the boys.

Nathan Orr gets lost, shows up at wrong debate

Nathan Orr and David Atwood are two young guys running for the State Legislature in District 24.  Well apparently their GPS wasn't working and these two young Moes ended up at the legislative candidate's debate in District 26. 

Once there, they wanted to speak anyway.  And we all know how a millennial can be when it wants its way.  They cried and acted out until they were allowed to speak.  But once started, the debate moderators couldn't shut them up and they held the floor for nearly twenty minutes.  Rude.

Their hosts finally got them to shut up and sit down, but not before they announced which one of the actual candidates in District 26 they preferred.  Of course, it was another millennial.  This one...

Lawyer seeks $162,000 from Morris County Freeholder Hank Lyon

Morris County Freeholder William “Hank” Lyon has been accused of owing his former lawyer $162,000 in unpaid legal bills while Lyon also is battling with the state over alleged campaign violations.

“What a worm,”  said attorney Sean Connelly about his former client, Lyon. “We never expected to be in this position. We won precisely how we said we would win.”

Lyon, a Montville resident, did not return several calls for comment and an email to his freeholder address.

Connelly and the law firm of Barry, McTiernan and Wedinger of Edison represented Lyon during a nine-month court battle that ended up with Lyon winning the freeholder seat.

Lyon had won the 2011 Republican primary by four votes over Freeholder Margaret Nordstrom of Washington Township.  Nordstrom sued and won, gaining her seat back.

Lyon appealed the ruling and a state appeals court ruled in his favor in February 2012 and removed Nordstrom from the position. Lyon later won the freeholder post at a special election in November 2012.

Connelly said that after Lyon refused mediation and other offers to settle, the firm finally filed the suit  on June 13 in Superior Court in Middlesex County against Lyon and his father, Robert A. Lyon, both of Montville, and their organization, “Lyon for Conservative Freeholder.” Connelly said Lyon has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Connelly said that before the court action, he had told Lyon that the lawsuit would be very costly.

“They said they were going to fund this to the end,” Connelly said.

The legal effort included  extensive court representations and $18,000 for transcripts.

“We filed motions upon motions upon motions,” Connelly said. “It tied up my practice for six months.”

Connelly said his firm has offered several discounts on the outstanding legal bills.  “They kept ignoring us,” Connelly said. “We offered them great terms to pay over time.”

Connelly also said he filed the lawsuit in Middlesex County in an effort to limit publicity in Morris County.

“I don’t want to embarrass him,” he said. “I want to get paid.”

Connelly said the freeholder avoided being served with the lawsuit summons, forcing him to hire a professional to  serve him at Lyon’s freeholder office.

Connelly said he also named Lyon’s father, Robert, in the lawsuit because the elder Lyon initially had agreed to pay the legal bills.

Connelly said he believes Lyon and his family have significant assets, including real estate holdings and restaurants.

Lyon’s income includes $24,375 a year as a freeholder. He also works with his father in the family’s business, which owns four restaurants, including Qdoba Mexican Grill restaurants and Maggie Moo’s ice cream parlors.

Election Violations

The N.J. Election Law Enforcement Commission also has accused Lyon of four violations of campaign finance laws during the 2011 Republican primary. Each violation could result in a maximum $6,800 fine.

The same alleged violations were cited by Superior Court Assignment Judge Thomas Weisenbeck when he ruled against Lyon and in favor of Nordstrom.

The commission names Lyon and his father who was the campaign treasurer.

One alleged violation involves a $16,000 loan made to the campaign a week before the primary but not reported until July 8. The state says that because the contribution was more than $1,200, it should have been reported within 48 hours.

Another alleged violation occurred when Lyon and his father certified the information on the loan and campaign report was correct but that they changed it in a subsequent report. Initially, Lyons reported that he had made the loan but it was later changed to identify Robert Lyon as the contributor, the state said.

Additionally, the state claims the information about the contribution was submitted after the June 27 deadline.

Further, the complaint says that $16,795 in expenditures were listed on July 8 but were due on June 27.

(Editor Phil Garber, December 11, 2013, newjerseyhills.com)

Better keep that GPS in working order.  This crew couldn't find their backsides in a snow storm.

Orr & Atwood don't know what they are talking about

Sure, Nathan Orr is going to school in the hope of graduating one day, then maybe passing the bar, then maybe getting to be a lawyer.  But it is just a little arrogant to say you know more about the law than do seasoned prosecutors who have spent decades putting violent criminals behind bars. 

If Nathan Orr had to spend ten minutes with some of these people, he'd wet himself.  Forget about him putting a case together to put them behind bars.

Orr & Atwood talk about the new bail reform system as if they knew something about prosecuting criminals.  They don't.

Bail Reform was placed on the ballot as a Public Question and passed by the voters of New Jersey.  Sussex County voted for it, Warren County voted for it, Morris County voted for it.

Here is what career prosecutors New Jersey Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino and Elie Honig, Director of the Division of Criminal Justice had to say about it (October 13, 2016):

Attorney General Issues Directive to Guide Prosecutors and Police in Implementing Historic Bail Reform That Will Keep Dangerous Criminals in Jail and Eliminate Unfair Monetary-Based Bail System

TRENTON – Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino today issued a new directive that provides detailed guidance to prosecutors and police in implementing the historic bail reform law and related amendment to the New Jersey Constitution, which for the first time in state history will permit dangerous criminals charged with non-capital crimes to be held without bail after arrest.  The far-reaching criminal justice reforms also mandate speedy trials and, in most cases, eliminate monetary bail, which has had a discriminatory impact on poorer defendants who have remained in jail on minor charges under the old system due to inability to pay even modest amounts of bail. The bail reform law, which was signed by Governor Christie in August 2014, replaces the current monetary bail system with a risk-based approach, requiring courts to assess the likelihood that a defendant will flee, commit new criminal activity, or obstruct justice by intimidating victims and other witnesses.  In addition to establishing clear standards and criteria to guide the way police and prosecutors exercise their discretion in deciding when to seek pretrial detention, the new directive from the Attorney General establishes procedural safeguards to ensure consistency in implementing these major criminal justice reforms in New Jersey.  Although the new law focuses on the pretrial release decision, its provisions ultimately will affect how cases are handled at every stage of the criminal justice process, from the moment police make an arrest to the time when a defendant is tried or pleads guilty.  The directive was drafted to promote fairness, uniformity and cost efficiency in implementing the new law. “New Jersey’s bail reform law puts safety first, eliminating a monetary bail system that allowed dangerous criminals to pay their way out of jail, often with proceeds of their crimes, while others charged with nonviolent offenses languished in jail because they were poor,” said Attorney General Porrino.  “Our directive provides detailed guidance to prosecutors and police on how to use this new risk-based system to best protect the people of New Jersey, while treating defendants fairly.” “This new law gives prosecutors powerful new tools to detain and monitor dangerous criminals pending trial,” said Director Elie Honig of the Division of Criminal Justice.  “Our goal with this directive is to enable prosecutors to use those tools effectively and judiciously to protect the community, recognizing that defendants who are unlikely to flee or commit new crimes should not be jailed at taxpayer expense.” The bail reform law creates a general presumption against preventive detention after arrest – meaning extended pretrial custody in jail – except where a defendant is charged with murder or is facing an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment.  While that specific exception encompasses only a very small number of the most serious crimes, the law permits prosecutors within their discretion to apply for pretrial detention and seek to rebut the presumption in other cases, including (1) cases involving certain other serious crimes, including primarily violent first- and second-degree offenses enumerated under the No Early Release Act, crimes involving a firearm under the Graves Act, and crimes involving domestic violence, and (2) more generally, any case where the prosecutor believes there is a serious risk that the defendant will flee, will pose a danger to specific persons or the community, or will attempt to obstruct justice or threaten, injure or intimidate a victim, witness or juror. The process begins with a decision by police and prosecutors regarding whether to charge by complaint-warrant or complaint-summons.  If authorities want to seek pretrial detention of a defendant or, in the alternative, want the court to impose any conditions of release to mitigate risks posed by a defendant, they must charge the defendant by complaint-warrant.  When a warrant is issued by the court, a defendant must be taken to a county jail, where he or she will be held for up to 48 hours.  Within 48 hours, the defendant will have a first appearance in court, where, if the state has filed a motion to detain, the judge will decide whether to detain the defendant or release the defendant, and what conditions should be imposed if the defendant is released.  In all of those cases where the prosecutor is permitted to apply for preventive detention, the law’s presumption of pretrial release can be overcome only if the state can establish by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, or that the defendant will not attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process. In order to assist law enforcement and judges in making decisions about a defendant, the Administrative Office of the Courts developed a computer-based automated risk assessment, known as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), which accounts for the general nature and seriousness of the crime charged, as well as certain electronically stored criminal case and court history data documenting the defendant’s adult criminal and court-appearance history.  The PSA provides three pretrial risk indicators: (1) a six-point “failure-to-appear” scale gauging the likelihood the defendant will fail to appear in court; (2) a six-point “new criminal activity” scale gauging the likelihood the defendant will engage in new crimes if released; and (3) a “new violent criminal activity” flag, which flags defendants who are likely to engage in violent crimes if released. Police and prosecutors will be able to access the PSA at the time charges are filed and will use the PSA to inform their decision-making with regard to whether to charge by warrant or summons.  A new violent criminal activity flag automatically triggers a presumption that law enforcement will apply for a warrant and the prosecutor will seek pretrial detention.  The other scores become factors that are considered by law enforcement and judges in making decisions.  If a warrant is issued so the defendant is jailed, the Judiciary’s pre-trial services program will produce a full pretrial risk assessment that incorporates the PSA but also accounts for other circumstances and factors.  That report – which includes recommendations about whether to release and release conditions – will be completed by the courts before a defendant’s first appearance. The new directive issued today by Attorney General Porrino provides comprehensive guidance to police and prosecutors with regard to how they should handle the many cases where they are given discretion to apply for pretrial detention or release conditions for a defendant.  The directive sets forth presumptions that generally are more detailed, comprehensive and precise than the presumptions established by the law and court rules.  At the same time, the directive affords police and prosecutors the flexibility to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including those not accounted for by the PSA. Highlights of the Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Reform Directive include: The directive emphasizes that, in implementing the reforms, police and prosecutors must ensure that they safeguard the rights of victims, including their state constitutional and statutory right to participate in the criminal justice process and have meaningful input in prosecutorial decisions affecting their interests.  The directive establishes special considerations, notifications and procedures to protect victims in domestic violence and sexual assault cases. All decisions regarding whether to charge by warrant or summons must be approved by an assistant prosecutor, deputy attorney general, or designated police supervisor.  The directive sets up a system for such personnel to be available 24/7 to offer real-time legal advice and charging approvals. By allowing prosecutors to designate a supervisory police officer, rather than an assistant prosecutor, to make initial screening decisions after hours, the directive provides for cost savings. When a defendant is detained before trial, the new law requires generally that the case be indicted within 90 days and brought to trial within 180 days of indictment, subject to provisions for extension.  However, those speedy trial rules do not apply in cases without pretrial detention. In cases where the defendant remains free, he or she may have little incentive to accept responsibility and plead guilty in a timely fashion.  To address this concern, the Attorney General’s directive requires all prosecutors to adopt a graduated plea policy under which plea offers grow tougher over time, not more lenient, so as to encourage guilty offenders to plead guilty, thereby conserving law enforcement and judicial resources and facilitating potential cooperation in ongoing cases. The Division of Criminal Justice, in cooperation with the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, the State Police and the New Jersey Association of Chiefs of Police, is directed to develop an online training program for police officers to explain the requirements of the new law and the directive.  It also will prepare an instruction card for police summarizing key aspects of the directive.  The Division will work with the Prosecutors Association and the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute to develop continuing legal education courses for prosecutors dealing with the new law. The directive calls for formation of a Criminal Justice Reform Advisory Group to meet regularly to review implementation of the new law and the directive, to address legal and practical issues that arise, and to develop uniform positions and legal materials to assist prosecutors handling pretrial detention hearings, motions and appeals under the new law. The directive contemplates an ongoing dialogue where best practices are developed locally, shared and replicated in other jurisdictions. The Division of Criminal Justice, in cooperation with the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey and the Attorney General’s Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards, will study the implementation and impact of the new law and the directive and will prepare two reports for the Attorney General, one by June 30, 2017, and the second by June 30, 2018. Attorney General Porrino thanked Assistant Attorney General Ron Susswein and Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Soriano for drafting the directive, under the supervision of Director Honig.  Attorney General Porrino also thanked the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey for their valuable assistance.

Assembly candidate Quick takes the low road

Assembly Candidate Mark Quick

There was a reason the members of the Skylands Tea Party threw Mark Quick out of their organization.  Quick talks violently and uses foul and pornographic language to describe anyone who happens to disagree with him.  The Skylands Tea Party got tired of it, so they voted to toss him from their meetings.

Somehow the new leaders of the group neglected to remember this and they've invited him back.  Possibly because Quick is running on a legislative ticket that includes Gail Phoebus and Morris County politician David Scapicchio. 

Quick is fond of posting threats likes these on Facebook:

We don't understand how Phoebus, who often adopts a proto-feminist line when dealing with male Republicans, ended up recruiting Quick to run on a ticket with her.  Quick certainly claims she did.  It will be a curious campaign, with Phoebus blaming all her troubles on "white male privilege" while Quick contents himself with the kind of language featured below:

Yes, he is a candidate for public office.  Sigh.

Stay tuned...

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?