Sussex solar scandal, round two?

Watchdog's own "solar tracker" weighs in with thoughts on the new mistakes that have been made in the handling of Sussex County's solar nightmare.  This is important reading -- and pay close attention to what goes on at tonight's away-from-home Freeholder Board meeting in Vernon.

Where is the transparency?

Graham's group reminds me of when Obama first took over and told us how FOIA would be respected and transparency would be the rule.  Then the opposite happened.

What is Item E in Section 10, of the Consent Agenda? 

You can't understand what this item is about from reading the Resolution, let alone Item 10E.  And Exhibit A, providing context, was purposefully left off the Agenda.  Maybe this is a misdirection play, but solar should not be gamed.

Where is a solar investigation? 

The solar program is blowing out losses well beyond the original Eskilson/Re declaration of losses of $900,000 a year.  Last May, the Freeholders went into debt for $3.1 million more claiming it's because Sunlight hadn't received Federal 1603 money.

Why is the County guaranteeing Federal subsidies to private enterprises?

Yet this $3.1m was not listed in the Year 2015 public bailout summaries.  Freeholder Graham still won't tell us if solar gen build out construction met promised levels.  Freeholder Graham can't account for 3,000-4,000 SRECs/yr.

The solar program has gobbled up 2% of the operating budget and we're not building anything, won't own anything and the County taxpayer was never to receive any benefit from it.

And the biggest issue - how did Freeholder Graham get appointed to close-out the solar program?  Where was the Board vote?  What is the definition of closing out the program?  What committee was formed and just what powers does Graham have to closeout?  Who has been the prior county solar program manager for the past 2 years that Freeholder Graham now replaces/oversees/aides/fills-the-vacuum-for ( truly, what is this "role")?  This is a most unusual way for a Freeholder Board to work.

Should anything "solar" be on a consent agenda today?  Shouldn't there be a discussion for all solar contractual issues with a vote at a following meeting?  After all, any Addendum/Consent added to a Special Purpose Entity contractual arrangement may have wide ranging, unintended ramifications that are not necessarily seen by the public.  We saw this with the very first one, Addendum #1, that permitted protected construction funds to be raided for finance and legal payments which then caused mayhem years later.  Addendum #1 was passed in a similar way that avoided public awareness that insiders had lost control. 

Shouldn't any solar program change, no matter how minor, be publicly aired with weeks between the airing and a vote?

More than anything, this is about transparency and proper public reviews for a program that continues to bleed red ink in a climate of secrecy. 

Read the Resolution, Section 1 reads like a blank check - although Exhibit A is missing to provide context.  How does Section 1, combined with Freeholder Graham's appointment to close out solar, read to you? 

Doherty bill makes Sussex schoolchildren suffer

A "fair school funding" bill backed by Senator Mike Doherty (R-23) would cut funding to some of Sussex County's biggest school districts, causing property taxes to explode. This is according to the bill's own website.

If you live in one of Sussex County's populous suburban municipalities -- like Vernon or Hopatcong -- you will see a decrease in the amount of your income tax dollars returned to you by Trenton.  The same goes if you live in one of the county's older boroughs -- like Franklin, Ogdensburg, Sussex, and Hamburg.  Even if you live in a farming community like Wantage, you will see the money for your children's education slashed by Doherty and replaced with the need for higher property taxes.

According to the website put up with the Doherty bill, the best towns like these can look forward to is this:  "The Fairness Formula may not result in a decrease of property taxes for your town, however there are other solutions to lowering municipal government costs."

 

What does cutting the cost of municipal government have to do with school funding?  They are two different things.  Now if we are talking about finding ways to lower education costs or the costs associated with school boards, that is more to the point, but this is just out and out b.s. 

 

But it is typical Doherty.

 

Senator Doherty talks cost cutting when what he really means to do is to cut our children's school money and force us to raise property taxes to make up for it.

The "real fair school funding" bills are ACR46 and SCR35.  Senator Steve Oroho (R-24), Assemblyman Parker Space (R-24), and Assemblywoman Gail Phoebus (R-24) are all co-sponsors of this legislation.  Senator Doherty once championed these bills too, before he decided to go with legislation he thought had a better chance of success. Unfortunately, what Doherty went with hurts the children of Sussex County.

Is Senator Doherty a "bad" man?  No.  What Senator Doherty is doing is called compromising.  In return for a general perceived good, some are being harmed.  

For example.  In 2009, Mike Doherty ran on a ticket that advocated replacing New Jersey's progressive income tax with a flat tax.  Like President Reagan's user fees, the flat tax is a very conservative idea.  But some Republicans objected and claimed that it would only help the rich.  They said that it would raise taxes on 70 percent of New Jerseyeans. Others said it would save the average New Jerseyean $1,000 a year and would help to grow the economy.  There were good, honest advocates in both camps.  Of course, the argument could be made that Mike Doherty wanted to raise taxes on 70 percent of New Jerseyeans -- doubling the taxes for some.

 Let us know.  We are always interested in your thoughts and ideas.  Write to us at: info@sussexcountywatchdog.com

Behind the Scenes at the Solar Scandal

As Sussex taxpayers prepare to be bent over, some of the county's backroom operators are carefully maneuvering themselves behind people they want to ride to get ahead.  In a vote of no-confidence on his boss' staying power, Vernon's lawyer has got into the action.  He's hoping to fan his way into the County Counsel's position once the incumbent has had enough.  His "robin" is a Trustee of that ethically challenged board over at the Community College.  Word is out that he wants to see Ailish Hambel move along so he can have the job.  The two have made a major investment in margarine.  Fake for sure, but enough to butter the ample posteriors of the three wise guys who make up the county establishment over on the Freeholder Board. 

We got this great head-ups from one of our readers-in-the-know.  This whistleblower wants Watchdog to track down some info so he provided us with these clues:

Why is everyone calling the additional solar deal a "settlement".  There were no claims on Sussex. This was a bailout. 

A very large Section 1603 Federal payment went to Sunlight mid 2013 just as some "Morris Model" solar projects were blowing up.

What did Sunlight use these funds for? Were these funds contributed to properly reduce the Sussex bailout?

Did Sunlight ever put their promised $7M into the Sussex solar program?

You, our readers, should try to get answers to these questions for yourself.  Share them with us, on Facebook, Twitter, wherever.

Did you hear the one about the lobbyist who researched his ancestry?