I forgot all about the County Manager’s annual trek thanks to the Love Hope Strength foundation and donors unknown until someone reminded me today. The trip was Aug. 21 - 29. Looks like he had a great time.

Some photo’s of his trip from the Love Hope Strengh Association’s website:

Previosly reported:
A: Mt. Fuji
Q: Where is County Manager George Devanney vacationing this year?
Thanks to a cozy relationship with a cancer charity, Love, Hope, Strength Foundation, involving a two-day rock festival, George Devanney and other county employees get to take exotic trips: Mt. Everest in 2007; Machu Picchu in 2008; Mt. Kiliminjaro in 2009 (George Devanney did not go on that one but his wife did). Read more.

To Whom it May Concern:

I received a telephone call late yesterday afternoon from Councilwoman Elaine Perna of Berkeley Heights asking me to explain how an email of mine was posted on the Union County Watchdog Association web page. Mrs. Perna advised me that she was calling on behalf of Mayor Woodruff. The Mayor requested that the article and email be removed from the website as well as a retraction printed because officials from Berkeley Heights never notified its employees that their email was going to be purged and that the email was sent to Berkeley Heights employees in error by the Union County IT Department.

Further, I have attached an email that was sent to all Berkeley Heights employees on Monday morning from the Union County IT Department apologizing for the mis-communication and I am hoping that you will put this up on your website to explain what happened.

Sincerely,
Robin Greenwald

Previously reported: Emails to be purged

The following letter by Fanwood Councilman Robert Manduca was published by the Westfield Leader Times this week.

Assemblywoman Linda Stender is a former Union County Freeholder.

Why the ‘No’ Vote on Fanwood Council For Healthcare Override Resolution?

I voted against Fanwood’s Woman’s Healthcare Override Resolution because it had little to do with women’s healthcare, and everything to do with money and politics. The Governor chose to protect taxpayers’ pocketbooks with his veto and, for that, we should all thank him.

Unfortunately, some politicians don’t look at their political allies as critically as
the public good might demand. Assemblywoman Linda Stender, the override
sponsor, is a professional politician. Planned Parenthood endorses her political activities and she, in turn, funds them out of the public treasury. She gets campaign funding from Emily’s list, National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) and other special interest planned parenthood advocacy groups.

Linda Stender’s chief of staff is the husband of Michele Jaker, Planned Parenthood’s executive director. In an amazing coincidence, Fanwood Mayor
Colleen Mahr appointed Michele Jaker as Fanwood’s public defender.

The New Jersey Family Planning Association, which manages the Non-
Planned Parenthood facilities, funded in the override resolution, just happens to be managed by — you guessed it, Michele Jaker.

Planned Parenthood really is a family business.

These cozy relationships between recipients of public funds, special interests
and legislators are why New Jersey is such a high tax state. While it is not
illegal, this cronyism combined with multiple full-time jobs and pensions has
been the New Jersey way of doing things for far too long.

The assemblywoman didn’t create this system, but she is exploiting it nonetheless.

Once you look beyond the lofty rhetoric, the resolution potentially takes $75
million in taxpayers’ funds and funnels it to a private special interest advocacy
group with little or no accountability.

Planned Parenthood of New Jersey isn’t current with its legally mandated
IRS filings. Why are we supposed to trust them with our money? In Fanwood, we don’t even let a company do tree work for the Shade Tree Commission if they’re behind on tax filings. Why the special treatment for Planned Parenthood?

While Stender repeatedly promises “strict audits by the state,” there is no
rational basis to believe this is happening. There is no public record of the Corzine, Codey or McGreevey administrations ever auditing Planned Parenthood. One outside organization that has taken a look at their books, the Government Accounting Office, in a report dated May 28, 2010, documents millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that are either missing or
unaccounted for. The U.S. Inspector General, charged with preventing Medicaid fraud, has demanded $2.9 million in funds be returned because New Jersey Planned Parenthood wrongly billed unqualified services as Family Planning Services.

Unfortunately, bookkeeping irregularities and public statements by a former
Planned Parenthood director about misusing funds for abortions doesn’t seem to bother Asw. Stender.

A false impression is created when the good assemblywoman repeatedly states, “We get $9 back for every $1 we spend.” The “we” she is talking about is not the citizens of New Jersey. Planned Parenthood gets our $1 of spending and they also get an additional $9 from Medicaid.

The taxpayer doesn’t get squat. It is telling that she uses “We” to refer to herself and an advocacy group rather than the citizens she was elected to represent.

The real math is even worse, as both The Star-Ledger and AP report — the
State of New Jersey was forced to repay many of those $9 for $1 Medicaid bonuses she touts — Because New Jersey Planned Parenthood improperly billed claims — every $1 we gave Planned Parenthood in the past cost New Jersey taxpayers an extra $9.

If Planned Parenthood was being strictly audited as Asw. Stender claims,
don’t you think they would have picked up on millions of dollars in bogus billing?

Many similar misleading statements were made during Asw. Stender’s hour-long presentation. This is the second time in six months the mayor has given Stender free reign to politic for tax increases during what should be meetings devoted to the town’s business. Which is another reason why the reader can know this is all about politics and not women’s health.

Fanwood is one of the only suburban towns in the state to pass such a resolution. We can reasonably assume women live in other towns too. They just don’t have vested political and financial interest in these taxpayers’ funds.

The Obama Administration just completed a top down overhaul of our nation’s
healthcare system. During the yearlong national discussion of Obamacare, did you once hear any expert point to New Jersey Planned Parenthood and say, “They have a great way to deliver healthcare to the needy, lets copy the New Jersey model?” No, that’s because this is an inefficient, politically corrupt way of delivering redundant healthcare benefits.

I am sure Planned Parenthood does some good things. However, good causes are not a license to tax us out of our homes. I donate my time and treasure to Raphael’s Life House in Elizabeth, where poor women and children receive free medical care, prenatal care, prescriptions, etc. I encourage anyone who is truly pro women’s health to support their work. They provide these services without costing taxpayers a dime and, amazingly, don’t require Michele Jaker’s services either. Please see raphaelslifehouse.org.

If Asw. Stender is passionate about her beliefs as an ardent pro-abortion advocate, she can devote her own time and treasure to it. That’s the American way. She raised over $7.5 million for her unsuccessful congressional campaigns. I’m sure she could persuade the same “friends” to fund Planned Parenthood. That is if it was really important to her.

If she does not think it’s worth her time to raise the money, why should taxpayers fund her political advocacy? We have schools, police and other funding priorities. I’m glad the Governor and fiscally responsible members of our Legislature agree.

Previously reported: Political Graft & the Stenders

When created in May 2009 the county stated in a press release that the new office of Economic Crime/Inspection Bureau to be headed by then acting public safety director Richard Childs would conduct public awareness programs on identify theft and credit card fraud as one of its duties.

Over a year later an OPRA request sought the schedule of public awareness programs conduced by the Office of Economic Crime/Inspection Bureau since its creation to date.

Response:

No document to provide.

Previously reported.

Two lawsuits filed against Union County Government were settled in June.

Litigation was settled titled Alvin White v. County of Union, and potential related litigation and personnel matters as recommended by the Office of the County Counsel.

This complaint was filed in January 2010 and to date no monies were appropriated for outside council. The complaint alleged that the Union County Corrections Officer was wrongfully indicted based in large part on an incomplete and slipshod bogus Internal Affairs Department investigation in which he was never given the opportunity to fully explain what transpired. As of August 3rd, the settlement agreement was not available to the public.

More funds were appropriated and litigation was settled for the complaint entitled Catherine Alexander v. County of Union. To date Resolutions appropriated funds to four firms for this case for a total legal fee cost to Union County of $290,000 The breakdown is as follows: Krevsky Silber Brown & Begen of Cranford $30,000; Bauch Zucker Hatfield, of Springfield, $120,000; Schenck, Price, Smith & King of Morristown, $10,000; and Palumbo & Renaud of Cranford, $130,000.

County Counsel Robert Barry said the case has gone on for two-and-a-half years and that a settlement was reached as the case was going to trial.

The board approved a $500,000 settlement to former county environmental engineer Catherine Alexander for dismissal of her claims. The woman had alleged a county “sham” in its hiring practices for seasonal workers, as she was listed, to “avoid civil service tenure rights,” according to a copy of the lawsuit. She alleged that for six years, she was hired, dismissed and rehired every six months to avoid the county paying benefits, including enrollment in the state pension system.

The complaint further alleged County park lands are largely going unprotected from encroachment. Encroachers are pursued “selectively by the county depending on the identity of the encroacher” and that the County lost 5 million dollars in Green Acres funding because of mismanagement “Union County has the worst encroachment situation in the state” stated a Green Acres official according to the complaint.

When asked during a public comment portion at this freeholder meeting whether the county’s seasonal hiring practices and their encroachment practices have been changed since this complaint was filed, the county did not respond.

More monies ($40,000) were appropriated in July for the matter entitled Jonathan Dawkins v. UC.

The complaint alleges that the 37 year old plaintiff was withheld his medication for approximately 2 weeks after being transferred from Essex County jail. Union County failed to ask Essex County for his medical records and Essex County failed to transfer his records. He became disconnected from reality and a forced cell extraction was conducted with officers wearing full swat battle gear. A video tape with sound shows plaintiff clutching a pillow to his face when pepper spray was disposed and an officer forcibly cementing his knee in his back and neck as plaintiffs mouth & nose was smothered in the pillow he was holding thereby blocking his airway & ability to breathe. He was heard on videotape gasping for breath as he was asphyxiating. Video shows his body remains motionless for numerous minutes while constraints were continued to be applied. He became profoundly brain damaged. The complaint is asking for 44 million dollars for compensatory damages for past present and future medical expenses, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury for willful and malicious conduct and attorney’s fees.

This happened on or about October 1, 2007. County Council confirmed at the meeting that Jonathan Dawkins remains on life support.

Berkeley Heights has notified their employees that as of August 30, 2010 at 7:00 a.m. in accordance with the County of Union Electronic Mail Management Policy, all email on the server that are dated prior to and including May 31, 2010 will be purged.

See email from PC Support

Following is a 6- part series exploring Union County’s $45 million solar initiative that originally ran on www.njvoices.com:

I. The Power Chart

I’ve asked in Cranford and Summit.  I’ve called in to the mayors of Linden and Clark.  I’ve investigated and reported back yet I still have questions about solar panels coming to Union County.  Hence this series where I will take this project in steps.

First, the brochure.

From which you learn nothing.  The first diptych consists of pictures of the freeholders and a glossy cover page, followed by an introduction to those pushing this project, a brief blurb on solar energy and, presumably as all the explanation you would dare ask for, a chart.

I like charts.  They make comprehension easier.  But, not this one.   A line labeled Solar Energy goes from the Local Unit to the UCIA when you would think it would be the Local Unit receiving Solar Energy.  Project Capital has a line with two arrows.  Savings seems to flow from the Power Provider through the UCIA to the Local Unit with no indication of how the Provider is able to provide those savings.

After what I’ve seen, this chart makes far more sense.

II. The Pushers

It needn’t have been solar power.  It could have been some combination of windmills, wheels, and hamsters;  anything that would get bonding done through the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) to benefit the pushers of  this project:

DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick: General Counsel to the UCIA with a hand (over $6.6 million worth since 2004) in the till of every project run through the UCIA.

PMK/BSG Group: Of course they’re big-time campaign donors but they also have an ex-county employee, who happens to go on treks with the county manager and his wife spearheading this deal.

Bond Underwriter: Financing through an Improvement Authority allows for the negotiated sale of the bonds, which is considered an advantage, though not necessarily for taxpayers.

III. The Morris Model

The Morris County Improvement Authority began their Renewable Energy initiative, as spearheaded by DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, earlier this year.  Based on what I can tell so far, those buildings that took the panels will be paying a little less for electricity but New Jersey taxpayers and, possibly bondholders, will take a bath.

Here is the Official Statement for the bonding which includes the repayment schedule (page 24) and where those repayments will come from (page 16).

In steps:

1) On February 1, 2010 $21.6 million was bonded of which $313,360 will be the cost of issuance and $436,640 will be for administrative expenses.  The remainder will pay to have some Company install solar panels on 17 buildings by February 18, 2011.

2) Solar will provide about 10% of the power for those buildings.  That 10% will indeed cost less, maybe 30% less, so total savings would be about 3%.  Here is the Feasibility Report with the anticipated savings for each project charted in the last few pages.

3) The bonds will be repaid over 15 years starting on August 15, 2011 with a payment of $2,682,145.  Total debt service through 2025 will be $29,803,465.

4) Those debt payments will be made by the Company that put up the panels who will get that money from 3 sources:
a) Set electricity fees from the buildings (22.22%)
b) Tax Credits/Benefits (20.40%)
c) SREC Revenue (57.38%).

IV. SRECs

They’re Solar Renewable Energy Certificates which are supposed to pay off 57.38% of the debt accumulated to put solar panels at 17 sites in Morris County which are projected to save 2.36% ($84,355) off of electricity bills at those sites in 2011.  Here’s the deal:

After the solar panels are put up there will be two bills those sites will be paying for electricity - about $3 million to their current fossil-fuel provider and $500 thousand to their new solar provider who will use that money to repay debt.  However, $500 thousand won’t cover that first $2,682,145.44 debt payment due on August 15, 2011.  So where is the rest of the money to come from?

Another half a million dollars is expected from ‘Tax Credits/Benefits’* that the solar company receives and the rest from ‘SREC Revenue’.

An SREC is a tradable certificate that represents all the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from the solar electric system and can be sold or traded separately from the power. It is issued once a solar facility has generated 1000kWh (1MWh), through either estimated or actual metered production, and can be listed on the bulletin board at the SREC website.

Electric suppliers under New Jersey’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) — one of the most aggressive in the United States — must procure 22.5% of the electricity they sell in New Jersey from qualifying renewables, including 2.12% solar, by May 2021 (details).  It’s a variation of cap-and-trade where the under-compliers buy credits from over-compliers to meet their obligations.   The Morris Model anticipates the sale of 3,774 SRECs (currently priced in the $600 range) annually which should more than cover the debt payments.  So what’s the problem?

Either (a) electricity will be a lot more expensive as providers of non-renewable energy pass on the substantial cost of having to purchase these SRECs to their customers or (b) energy providers will put up solar panels on their own to cover their RPS minimum requirements again passing on those costs but, at the same time, destroying the market for SRECs which would cause defaults of all those bonds sold to finance public purchase of solar panels.

Either way we pay more and, on top of that, are stuck with a bunch of ugly solar panels blocking out portions of God’s green earth.

V. The Numbers

Morris County was sold on a plan to bond $21.6 million to ‘go solar’ at 17 sites by talk of 30% savings in electricity at no cost.  Here are the real numbers:

A) 2.36% savings on electricity.  Instead of paying $3,571,857 those Morris County sites can expect to pay $3,487,502, an annual saving of $84,355.

B) 29,803,465.44 in debt service will be paid over the next 15 years by the Solar Provider who will get the money from various groups of taxpayers and electricity users.

C) 77.78% of debt service is expected to come from tax breaks and energy credits which translates into the general taxpayer and energy consumer.

D) 3,773,882 kilowatt hours (kW-h) expected from solar (16.8% of total kW-h) which would buy 3,773 SRECs.

E) $8,953,465 to be paid to bond investors and administrators who pushed this model.

The portion of electricity coming from solar might cost less (if it doesn’t snow too much) but that portion is projected to be 16.8%.  The remainder will surely cost more as providers of ‘non-renewable’ energy pick up the costs of subsidizing renewable energy.

The bonds will either be paid off by the Solar Provider with 77.78% help from subsidies and tax credits or defaulted if the volatile SREC market tanks.

There were over 100 pages of tables, charts, and obfuscating language to go through to get to the real numbers.  That appeared to be by design.

VI. The Risk

Union County officials have been told that there is no risk to spending $45 million to put up solar panels on some of their buildings.  They have been told this by the ones who are pushing this project for whom there really is no risk since they get their money up front.  However, for taxpayers and completely aside from the merits of solar energy, this scheme is doomed to failure simply because of the financing.
In the Morris Model 78% of the debt service is supposed to come from government subsidies including 58% from the sale of SRECs.  The first payment Morris County’s solar provider must make is $2,682,145.44 on August 15, 2011 and over $1.5 million of that is supposed to come from the sale of SRECs.  If the system generates 2,500 Megawatt hours of solar electricity and SRECs sell for $600 a MWh they’ll make it but……for how long?

SREC prices are artificially high compared to other states that have the program because New Jersey has set the cost of avoiding going solar very high ($693 for SACPs in 2010).  If that price keeps coming down (it was $711 in 2009) so will the price of SRECs but there is a much more dangerous, and more likely, scenario looming.

The market for SRECs are Oil and Gas energy providers in New Jersey who would purchase them to avoid paying SACPs.  However if Atlantic City Electric, JCP&L, Orange/Rockland Electric, Elizabethtown Gas, New Jersey Natural Gas, and PSE&G go solar voluntarily to meet their RPS requirements then they won’t need to buy SRECs since they’ll get them on their own.

That is happening.  Without anyone to sell their SRECs to the Solar Providers won’t have that $1.5 million to service their debt and will go bankrupt.  The county, which backed the bonds, will foist that cost onto taxpayers.

I brought this exact scenario up in public and the officials responding didn’t seem to have considered anything beyond what the DeCotiis people had assured them as if they were buying a subpirme, ninja ARM that looked too good to turn down.  It seems like an obvious scam with significant financial perils, but then, I have the benefit of having read the fine print without blinders.

Submitted by: John Paff

This is a video of former Police Officer Gennaro Mirabella trespassing in the Garwood Borough (Union County, New Jersey) offices. Background on how I came to obtain this video (which is more interesting than the video itself) can be found HERE and the links contained therein.

Last August 20th the Union County Alliance’s Exeutive Director, Ed Zarnock, took exception to my questions about his organization at a public meeting.

Zarnock has attended another meeting or two since then, he praises the freeholders for whatever is on the agenda, and never gets into the specifics of what the Alliance does for our taxdollars.

In recent years I have asked both the State and Federal Attorney General’s Office as well as the Office of the State Comptroller to investigate the relationship between the Union County Alliance and the County of Union.

It’s been over a year since my last request. Investigations aren’t confirmed or denied however, the Alliance is still in existence with county tax dollars as its major funding source. Open Public Records Act requests have produced no proof that any work listed in their proposal is actually done. Perhaps, there is nothing wrong there. No laws are being broken at least. Being a shady operation while spending public funds apparently isn’t illegal in New Jersey.

Isn’t that right State and Federal Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the State Comptroller?

That’s comforting to know, isn’t it Union County taxpayers? In fact the Alliance’s funding increased $10,000 since then so everything must be okey-dokey & A-O.K. It went from $322,125 in 2008 to $332,125 in 2009. In 2008 it was $265,125. The Alliance also receives a separate $29,000 to produce the Union County Directions Newsletter which is the only piece of work that shows up in OPRA requests for proof of work performed for $361,125 in county tax dollars.

The Alliance president is Michael Murray. In 2002 Murray was a county employee, his title was Director of Public Information. In 2003 he starts being listed on the county payroll as an employee of the Alliance. In 2005 he is not listed on the county payroll, despite still being the President of the Alliance. Then he returns to the employee rolls in 2006 and 2007. Murray’s last county salary was listed at $104,000 and he had use of a county-owned 2002 Ford Explorer. Since the Alliance’s funding increased by $67,000 in 2008, Murray no longer appeared on the county payroll and it appears he no longer has use of a county vehicle.

Michael Murray married the Union County Manager’s ex-wife which makes him step dad to George Devanney’s children. Devanney’s uncle is State Senator Raymond Lesniak.

In 2007 the county began giving the Alliance a separate $29,000 to produce the Union County Directions Newsletter. I haven’t checked whose been picking up the postage tab lately, that would be approximately $24,000.

There is no proof that anything in the Alliance proposal for funding is actually produced. The Alliance website has been reported on this blog in the past to not have been updated in years. Today it ceases to exist.

The UC Alliance claims in their proposal that their strength is in its membership, which includes representation from business, labor government and education.

Doesn’t any of their members need to visit a website to access the services the Alliance claims to be providing?

Obviously, the services performed by the Alliance can’t be quantified in writing.

Their annual proposal states: The Union County Alliance, Inc. will provide professional services in the following categories, including its role in providing support for the Long-term planning for the continued economic revitalization. This description is meant to be comprehensive, but not restrictive.

Information Services: Provide research and analysis of information within the scope of the Union County Master Plan.

Communications Service: Develop, create and maintain as needed web-based communications Writing, editing and publication development and production

Business Services: Provide research and information to potential developers and businesses with interest in locating in Union County; Develop and coordinate targeted conferences relevant to the business climate Contract Amount

Union County Alliance Executive Director Ed Zarnock “The UC Alliance is not a shady operation”.

Star-Ledger - Dems deny flier is campaign lit / Republicans say newsletter should focus on programs, not politicians