Crabb cover-up: 1800 words, Evaluation Report not mentioned

Giving unprecedented access to its pages, the New Jersey Herald permitted Freeholder Director Phil Crabb to pen an 1,800 word apology in today's edition that presents itself as an explanation of the solar mess, while it slyly attempts to blame Parker Space. 

So let's see, you have a lawyer, a bureaucrat, an accountant, a talk show host, a pharmaceutical salesman, and a union boss... and they want us to believe that the farmer did it.  Really?

Space was one of the Freeholders who voted for the concept in 2011.  He was an Assemblyman when the project went bad and required a taxpayer-funded bailout.  Space opposed the bailout and joined Freeholders Phoebus and Graham in asking the state Attorney General to initiate an investigation.  That investigation has begun.

As reported in the Herald, the Star-Ledger, the Advertiser, and Sparta Independent, the Express-Times and other media, a document called the Solar Proposal Evaluation Report  was  the sales document used to convince the Sussex County Freeholders that the solar plan was viable.   

Why then -- in his 1,800 word statement in the Herald -- didn't Freeholder Crabb mention the Solar Proposal Evaluation Report even once?

Because Crabb is trying to mislead the Herald's readers.  Because Crabb is attempting to protect the guilty.

Here is what really happened:

How it was sold to the Freeholders

In 2011, the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholder was composed of the following members:  Freeholder Director Rich Zeoli, Deputy Director Sue Zellman, and Freeholder members Phil Crabb, Rich Vohden, and Parker Space.  Vohden and Space were new to the  Board.  On November 14, 2011, the Freeholder Board voted unanimously to take the solar deal offered by SunLight  General.  How did it happen? 

Watchdog has uncovered the document used to sell the deal to the Freeholders, but first, let's look at the committee that was formed to sell the solar scheme.  It was called the Sussex County Evaluation Team and it was composed of the following people/organizations:

- John Eskilson Sussex County Administrator

- Dennis McConnell, Sussex County Attorney

- Bernard Re, Sussex County Treasurer

- Steve Pearlman, a lawyer with Inglesino, Pearlman, Wyciskala & Taylor

- Deb Verderame, a lawyer with Inglesino, Pearlman, Wyciskala & Taylor

- Gerry Genna, Birdsall Services Group

- Tom Brys, Birdsall Services Group

- Douglas Bacher, NW Financial Group

- Heather Litzebauer, NW Financial Group

- Steven Gabel, Gabel Associates

- Richard Preiss, Gabel Associates

- Cadence Bowden, Gabel Associates

This is the committee that recommended to the Freeholder Board that they agree to the solar scheme.  These are the promises they made to the Board: 

"The SunLight/MasTec team possesses high quality management, installation capabilities, and sound solar development experience.  In addition, the SunLight/MasTec proposal provides Sussex benefits in the following key areas:

- It provides substantial direct energy cost savings;

- It provides the Local Units the potential for additional savings through the sharing of revenues from the sale of Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) and other environmental benefits;

- Due to SunLight/MasTec's proposed capital investment, which reduces the required size of the Authority bonds, it provides a strong level of protection for Sussex from financial risk;

- It provided additional financial protection for Sussex in the form of a debt service reserve fund; and,

- It includes a restoration security providing for additional Local Unit protection at the end of contract."

The entire process was open to public bid, but only one bidder showed up.  Another showed up late and was disqualified.  Some wanted to redo the bid, but that suggestion was brushed aside.  Only one bidder?

The Aftermath

While Sussex County continues to pay these lobbyists and consultants, neighboring Morris County has taken action. 

Lawyer Pearlman and his firm were asked to resign by Morris County and they complied.  Gabel Associates was also asked to resign and complied.  That is 5 of 12 members of the Sussex County Evaluation Team .

In 2013, Birdsall Services Group pleaded guilty to charges of public corruption  and was ordered to pay $1m in penalties, as well as $2.6 million to settle a civil forfeiture action brought by the attorney general’s office.  Individual cases against seven executives are pending. 

That makes 7 of the 12 members of the Sussex County Evaluation Team.

But while they have suffered sanctions from Morris County or from the New Jersey Attorney General, Sussex County Freeholder Director Phil Crabb continues to be more than happy to do business with these people.

Maybe Sussex County taxpayers should think about recalling some of these Freeholders who continue to do business with the people who ripped off Sussex County?

Watchdog is read by 11,000 residents in Sussex County, either by email or online.  Let us hear from you.  Tell us what you think we should do...

Do you want your tax dollars to continue to pay the Sussex County Evaluation Team members who have been fired by Morris County or who have pled guilty to actions brought by the New Jersey Attorney General?

Let us know:  info@sussexcountywatchdog.com

Will Phil Crabb be the John Dean of the solar scandal?

Legendary Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein was in Sussex County this week and the timing couldn't have been better.  Sussex County residents are getting an inside look at how their government is run as a scandal unfolds involving a solar energy project sold by county bureaucrats as a sure thing, a failed corporation concocted by a group of Wall Street bankers, and a bailout that endangers more taxpayers money in a process gone bad.

And what Sussex taxpayers are finding out is that the county government they pay for isn't being run by the people they elected to run it. 

While elected Freeholders come and go, real power in the county is wielded by a couple professional bureaucrats who have occupied positions of power for decades.  County Attorney Dennis McConnell has held his position for over 25 years, while County Administrator John Eskilson joined the County in 2002 --coming from Hardyston Township, where he took over as administrator ten years earlier, when Wendy Molner was mayor.

Eskilson and McConnell are masters at always keeping control of three of the Freeholder Board's five votes.  They do so in a number of ways.  For instance, when Freeholder Rich Zeoli's wife needed a job, she was accommodated at the company where Eskilson's wife was Director of Business Development, ThorLabs.

The pair of bureaucrats prey on incoming freeholders whose minds are open to suggestion.  Often unsure of the job and insecure,  the bureaucrats school them on the ways of county government.  And so you get a Freeholder like Richard Vohden, who will tell you that he believes his role is to "ratify" whatever the county bureaucrats decide.  Seriously, he actually believes this.

The two bureaucrats operate like rogue managers at a corporation whose Board of Directors has become enfeebled and unable to exercise authority.  Every mistake -- from the AmeriPay scandal to the near theft of the county dump -- is brushed over lest the shareholders, the taxpayers, get up in arms.  "Don't look back, look forward" is what they say.

They control information and communications.  That was why Eskilson talked then Freeholder Director Vohden into giving him the job of Clerk of the Freeholder Board -- in addition to County Administrator.   A very unusual arrangement, but it leaves the Board with no independent staff.  It is like turning over your corporate governance committee to the CEO and it is why an official letter from county freeholders goes out to municipal governments without it even being discussed by the Board.

It is why county freeholders are forced to hire their own attorneys for honest representation and forced to use the state's Open Public Records Act to obtain basic information from the county that should be made available to them by the people who ostensibly work for them.  But if anything is clear, these two bureaucrats don't work for the elected representatives of the people, they work for themselves.  And they have made a pretty penny doing so.

Now Eskilson is in an open policy battle with some of the people he is supposed to work for, pushing his agenda and undermining the initiatives of his elected bosses.  He's even gone so far as to push his policy preferences with the political campaigns of candidates for freeholder.  None of this is very ethical, so far as his profession is concerned.  It undermines who they are, their status, and the protections generally afforded them. 

If Eskilson wants legitimate political power he has the opportunity to run for elected office.  That way the voters get to decide.  And if he wants to transform his office into that of an elected County Executive, he probably has the votes on the Freeholder Board to accomplish that, but again, the voters will have the final word and John Eskilson seems to want to avoid that.

Which brings us to Freeholder Director Phil Crabb.  Like John Dean, "the master manipulator of Watergate," Freeholder Crabb has played the role of chief explainer and apologist for the Sussex solar scandal.  Frequently incorrect in his facts, flip-flopping on tactics, always fudging what he "meant" to say.  First Crabb was for public disclosure in advance of voting on the settlement, then he was against it.  At various times he supported and then opposed reviews of what went wrong.  Then he was for public meetings to explain the solar settlement, and then he opposed them.  The word "flannel mouth" comes to mind.

Crabb's latest tactic is to make the claim to the media that (1) people don't care about the scandal; (2) there is a "backlash" against those who do care; and (3) that if you do care about a failed project and a bailout that is costing taxpayers $26 million it is all because of "politics". 

Crabb sounds remarkably like John Dean in the early days of Watergate.  That's because people like Crabb always forget that the public is busy trying to earn a living to feed the kids, keep a roof over their heads, and pay the property taxes screw-ups like Crabb stick them with.  But they aren't stupid, as Crabb seems to think.  They notice.  It takes time, genuine public outrage is usually a slow burn, but burn it does.  And when it does, watch out.

Anyway, Crabb doesn't have any data to back up his claims, he just pulls these things out of his butt.  It is the way of a man who has been very lucky in politics.  In the aftermath of Steve Oroho's hard-fought victory over Guy Gregg, Crabb was handed Gary Chiusano's Freeholder seat -- the seat Gary had to take from an incumbent.  Then he screwed up, didn't file his campaign finance reports for four years -- while he raised and spent money on stuff for someone -- and almost got asked to step down.  Rich Zeoli went to NJELEC and pleaded on his behalf and Crabb got caught up.  He was lucky in not being fined last year when he was up for re-election but those fines are coming. 

If not for the intervention of Steve Lonegan with a negative attack on opponent Dennis Mudrick, Crabb would have lost his 2011 re-election bid.  Last year, Crabb spent a lot of money against someone who didn't campaign at all, but still only won 60-40.  That was largely due to Crabb not having done a poll and not knowing that the issue he based his campaign on, the sale of the Homestead nursing home, isn't very popular with voters in Sussex County. 

Once again sans data, Crabb's  current performance is especially weak.  "All will be well..."

Is there a case against Dennis McConnell?

Well, for one thing, he's been at the public trough for a very long time.  He's pushing three decades of pocketing taxpayers' money and his law firm has made millions.  And that isn't the only thing.  A few years ago he talked the Freeholders into making him an employee -- ostensibly to save money -- but that also put him in line for a very nice pension.

Quoting County Administrator John Eskilson, the Sparta Independent and the Advertiser News report that McConnell receives a salary of $195,649 plus benefits.  His law firm, according to Eskilson, receives an additional $88,358 from the county "on litigation matters".

According to the Asbury Park Press, which keeps a record of these things, Dennis McConnell's base salary is $189,256 per year and he is enrolled in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).   You can calculate what he will continue to receive from the taxpayers by visiting the state webpage below:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/estimate-pers.shtml

None of this should surprise anyone.  In every county in New Jersey, whether run by Republicans or Democrats, there is always a cabal who takes care of each other on the taxpayers' dime.  We would like to see a little more turnover, a new set of eyes once in a while, but it is what it is.

The problem with Dennis McConnell is that he's been making a lot of eyebrow raising calls for a very long time.  Let's pick a random year -- 1989 for example -- and see what Sussex County Counsel Dennis McConnell was up to way back then.

In 1989, George Bush Sr. was America's brand new President.  Matt Damon was eligible to vote for the first time.  The Soviet Union still existed.  Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School.  Less than 15% of American households had a personal computer.  And 3 million people in the U.S. owned a cell phone (today it is more than 300 million) and they weighed a couple pounds.  Oh yeah, Sussex County had the same legal counsel it has today.

In 1989, County Counsel Dennis McConnell told the Freeholder Board that the taxpayers had to eat a $648,078 loan the county had made to another agency because apparently the professionals at the county had forgotten about it.  The Board, led by Freeholder Vic Marotta, said no way.  Marotta noted that, with interest, the agency owed the county $2 million, and he wanted to collect.

In 1989, the Star-Ledger and the Herald reported that county officials had met with a Democrat candidate for Sheriff who was also a county employee.  One of those officials was the County Counsel, Dennis McConnell.  They advised this candidate that he no longer had a job.  That led to the indictment of another one of those officials, the incumbent Sheriff at the time.  He was charged with exercising improper influence for threatening to fire the county employee if he ran for sheriff, and was accused of "official misconduct, criminal coercion and threats and other improper influence in official and political matters in a three-count indictment handed up by a state grand jury in Trenton."

The New Jersey Attorney General said that the county employee's "constitutional right to run for public office" was threatened, adding that "any attempt to thwart or undermine an election or political candidacy is a grievous offense against the state."

And again in 1989, County Counsel Dennis McConnell advised the Freeholder Board to invalidate the employment contract of 68 county workers simply because the county agency that had negotiated the contract had been merged into another department during a restructuring of county government.

Pick any year and you will find a lot of head-scratchers like these.

We believe that the case against lawyer Dennis McConnell rests on his support for and justification of a "non-disparagement" clause, a gag-order really, as part of the "settlement" agreement Sussex County negotiated in order to borrow more taxpayers' money to bail out the failed solar project.  The Herald described it this way:  "Under the settlement's non-disparagement clause, the county freeholders are barred from voicing public criticisms of the professionals, consultants and other entities that were involved in the original solar project and in the recently concluded settlement negotiations."

And McConnell is quoted by the Herald as clearly defending the public gagging of everyone in the know, calling the non-disparagement clause "a material part of that binding agreement approved by them (the Freeholders) in their official capacities for the benefit of the citizens of Sussex County."

We believe that any lawyer who supports and justifies such a thing simply doesn't understand or respect the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of these United States.  We're sorry, but to us it borders on being un-American.

It is bad enough that money has corrupted the political system and has molded the politicians of both parties into pawns of special interests.  It is bad enough that Wall Street can wreck the American economy and then keep their bonuses with bail out money from working taxpayers.  It is bad enough that banks can do whatever they want to do -- from illegal foreclosures to laundering the money of drug cartels -- and never go to jail for it. 

But to try to set a precedent on behalf of a group of scumbag Wall Street operators like SunLight General -- to try to tell the people and their elected officials that they cannot even complain about it -- that simply goes too far.  It's like something some Fascist would think up.

And for that reason we think that the County Counsel should do the honorable thing and resign.

Update on Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:06PM by Sussex County Watchdog

One of our reader's posted this important commentary on the above story:

You neglected to mention that Mr. McConnell appointed his law partner Bob Campbell to the post of County Adjuster which is a salaried position. Mr. Campbell also is the stand-in for McConnell at Freeholder meetings if he is unable to attend. Someone should look into theses conflicts of interest.

Update on Friday, March 27, 2015 at 3:13PM by Sussex County Watchdog

One of our reader's took the opportunity to write an insightful addendum to the above article.  He took issue with one of the examples we gave.  He writes that we were listing examples of "alleged Republican corruption".  This is a misinterpretation on his part.  Our intent was only to list examples of arguably questionable legal direction.  But enough of our explanation, please take the time to read this well written, first-hand account of what went on back in 1989.

Dear Watchdog---While reading your article below I was captivated by your stroll down Memory Lane to events in 1989 involving then Sussex County Sheriff Fred Cooper.  I represented Sheriff Cooper in that matter and so have personal knowledge of what happened back then.  Your article presents a tease of just a few of the preliminary details of the case that give a distorted view of the issues.  The article also fails to mention Sheriff Cooper’s total vindication in court with complete dismissal of all charges.  As Fred’s attorney, I was there, and like Paul Harvey used to say, your readers need to hear the rest of the story.  Sheriff Cooper’s actions were proven to be entirely proper and legitimate then, both by the trial court in Morristown (Judge Stanton), which dismissed the indictment, as well as by a panel of judges in the Appellate Division which rejected the Att’y Genl’s appeal of the dismissal.  It’s unfair to slime with half-truths such a respected, stalwart, kind, humble man as Fred Cooper, especially as he’s passed on these many years and can’t defend himself.  I’m pleased and honored as Fred’s former lawyer to set the record straight.

The article makes a general reference to the Dem. candidate for Sheriff in 1989 as a “county employee.” While that statement is certainly true, it fails to convey that the individual was Joe Diemar, an employee in the Sheriff’s Dept.   Fred was the one who hired Diemar in the Sheriff’s Dept. in the first place as an act of good-heartedness and charitable feeling, Fred being a Republican and a legendary vote-getter in Sussex County electoral politics.  Over time, Sheriff Cooper came to repose more and more trust in Diemar, so that at the time of these events, Diemar wasn’t just an ordinary employee in the Sheriff’s Dept., but had been appointed by Fred as Warden of the County jail and also an Undersheriff.  These positions of Undersheriff and Warden are recognized in NJ law as carrying implicit trust as part of the Sheriff’s top management/policy making team.  When Fred learned to his great disappointment that Diemar was considering running against him for County Sheriff on the Dem. ticket, he met with Joe and informed him that he could stay on as jail Warden/Undersheriff, but if he indeed intended to run against him for Sheriff in the general election, he would have to terminate his employment.  Joe Diemar replied that he was definitely running against Fred as a Dem., so Fred legally, appropriately, and justifiably told him to clear out his desk.

Bear in mind that Richard Honig, a fellow Dem. of Diemar, was the Sussex County Prosecutor at that time.  He did all the preliminary investigation but then had to refer the matter to the Att’y Gen. to take over because of the obvious conflict of investigating a fellow County office holder.  That’s why you have the reference in your article to the State Grand Jury and a quote from the Att’y. Gen.  The article correctly recounts the disgraceful action of the Att’y Gen’l’s office in obtaining an indictment against Fred Cooper, but unfortunately omits “the rest of the story.”

After the State Grand Jury indictment was handed up, I filed a motion to dismiss all charges, because Sheriff Cooper’s actions as charged not only failed to constitute crimes, but also were historically recognized in NJ and throughout the rest of the country as proper and legitimate prerogatives of implicit to the office of the sheriff.  Bear in mind, this was not firing a low level guard or sheriff’s officer for exercising free speech rights or because of belonging to the other political party.   Everyone recognizes that would be at least questionable if not downright improper.  Diemar, however, had a high level position of trust within Sheriff Cooper’s management team who was now attempting to oust him from office.  New Jersey law, and indeed the law of the land clearly and explicitly recognizes the Sheriff’s right to terminate the employment of a high level appointee in a position of trust on these grounds, recognizing that the termination is not merely on account of generic political differences, but because the appointee has decided to run in an election for the same political office against the person who appointed him.  This erodes the very trust that the Sheriff is entitled to rely on for someone in Diemar’s position.   The trial court agreed with our motion to dismiss on these grounds.  Judge Stanton threw the indictment out long before trial, meaning that the Att’y Gen’s case was so weak and devoid of legal and factual support that it didn’t even deserve to have the jury consider it.

The Att’y Gen. foolishly wasted even more taxpayers’ money by appealing the dismissal to the Appellate Division, which slapped him down once again as expected, rejecting the appeal.  Fred was legally vindicated, won his reelection by an overwhelming margin of victory, and served out his years as Sheriff until he retired with honor, respect, and distinction.  He was a beloved figure in Sussex County’s history, and should be  remembered for the true worth of all his accomplishments  and decades of service to Sussex County, not unjustly smeared as a by-product of an effort to go after someone else.

So, while your article inaccurately portrays this case as emblematic of alleged Republican corruption, what it actually represented was an despicable machination by the other political party to misuse the criminal process in a (fortunately) unsuccessful effort to destroy one of the most popular, respected political figures ever in Sussex County history when they could never do so fairly and squarely at the ballot box.  That’s the real story, and that’s the rest of the story.

I hope there will be a way that you can print this piece as a clarification in one of your next editions to the unfair and unjust implications regarding Sheriff Fred Cooper in your article about Dennis McConnell.

Gary Kraemer

Attoney

Sparta

We admire Mr. Kraemer's legal ability and salute his work on behalf of his client.  This is a strong and forthright corrective to our story, which was not meant in any way as an attack on former Sheriff Cooper. In fact, our story does not mention his name. 

The focus of our story are the policies of county attorney Dennis McConnell.  Our point is that with different legal advice, the Cooper-Diemar affair of 1989 wouldn't have ended with the mess of an indictment with all its attendant costs to taxpayers.  It reminds us very much of another, more recent case, involving the advice someone got that led to the firing of Skip Danielson, who also worked for the Sheriff's office.  That ended up costing the taxpayers a bundle too.

In contrast, let's look at how the District 24 Legislators handled a similar situation in 2013.  Like high ranking members of the Sheriff's Department, legislative employees occupy politically sensitive "positions of trust".  In 2013, one such employee openly supported the candidacy of someone who was running directly against one of her bosses, and indirectly against a team composed of all her bosses. 

In contrast to 1989, the situation in 2013 was handled without litigation.  Instead of firing that employee, the legislators afforded her great leeway in self-expression.  They interpreted the First Amendment in the broadest way and, for that reason, that employee continues to work there.  And the taxpayers were not obliged to pay a cent to resolve the dispute.

We invite further comment on this and anything else we write.  Send us tips and commentary, and please don't be afraid to beat us up if you think we deserve it.  Enjoy the freedom to express yourself.