Friday
Nov162018

Blue what? The only NJ Dem legislator elected to Congress was endorsed by the NRA!

There’s a lot to be said for not having a record. 

For a start, you can lie about who you are and what you will do when you get elected.  You can even target your lies to different audiences – like pretending you have a war record and appealing to suburban voters with your anti-tax broadcast advertising, while using your grassroots to find and target liberals with a message especially for them.  That’s how the Democrats did it. 

Republicans… they did it ass backwards.  They invested millions to tell their grassroots to go to hell and then broadcast an explicitly liberal message to those cultural leftists who hate the word “Republican” the most.  And they did it in the midst of the most divisive national election since 2010 – on par with 1994.  They invested even more millions in turning out the very people who loath them – all the while doing their utmost to convince their base that they think of them the same way they think of dog excrement.  See, in this way you lose everybody! 

New Jersey Republicans desperately needed a unified message to take to war in 2018.  After Donald Trump and the GOP leadership in Congress screwed them by passing a tax package that arguably raised property taxes in the state with the worst property tax problem in the nation – somebody should have got everyone in a room to figure out a message.  Hey, it’s a small state so if you don’t want to come off like a cacophony, you’d better all be singing the same tune.

Instead, half argued that screwing with the state’s property tax deduction was a net positive, half said it was a net negative – and the Democrats, they just loved it!  For once, they got to be the party defending the beleaguered property taxpayers of New Jersey.  What passes for the media in New Jersey backed them up on it.  And more importantly, so did the instincts of the average property taxpayer.  Donald Trump or no Donald Trump, when it comes to trusting the promises politicians make about property taxes, they don’t.  Period.  Somebody should have remembered that.

After handing the property tax issue to the Democrats – the issue that has consistently tested as the top concern of New Jersey voters for at least the last decade – it is amazing the NJGOP did as well as it did on November 6th.  A large part of the electorate already hated Donald Trump (and therefore, the Republican brand) and wanted to show it – but by miscalculation, the remainder were granted permission to hate the GOP too… over property taxes!  Gagged and gagged again.

But it wouldn’t have worked so well if the Democrats hadn’t been such clean slates.  Just think of it.  All those Democrats in the Legislature with all those perfect liberal voting records… and the only guy who is acceptable to the electorate to move up and go to Congress is the state’s most conservative Democrat legislator… the one who is endorsed by the NRA.  The one who voted against same-sex marriage.  Heck, Jeff Van Drew is more Pro-Life than many Republicans and has opposed both RGGI and increasing the minimum wage!  But he moved up, and all the rest stayed behind. 

Meanwhile, DC residents Andy Kim and Tom Malinowski simply move into the state, take out six month leases on rental properties, run and win.  And the silly fools who spent years as Democrat committee members, in local governments, running for Freeholder and then for Assembly… they just suck ass.  You can’t get elected because your liberal records won’t let you.

Where did Mikie Sherrill come from?  The “Navy pilot – Prosecutor – Mom” fell out of the sky and landed in Congress.  In the new politics of congressional elections, she’s one of the Houyhnhnm.  Back in the trenches, the time-serving yahoos can only snort and envy her advancement. 

Yesterday, Rutgers put out a new poll showing that – once again – taxes top the state’s issues grid (with a sizeable number volunteering “property” taxes as their big concern).  The Eagleton poll noted that people are generally happy with the state’s economy and, as it is part of a generally buoyant national economy, that shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it does appear Democrat Governor Murphy is taking more credit than the state Republican leaders.  One “research professor” drew attention to “a new phenomenon” of voters not having quite formed an opinion of Phil Murphy, after nearly a year in office.  It’s like they don’t know him and it’s taking some time. (Maybe they will now… after yesterday’s snow job?)

A phenomenon is it?  Why is anyone surprised, given the state of political news coverage in New Jersey?  Just ask anyone on press row… oh, that’s right, it’s not there anymore.  If it’s a national election like we just had, the coverage will be driven by national outlets.  If not… good luck.  And that is something our campaign gurus are going to need to consider when planning what used to be called “earned media” campaigns. 

Meanwhile, back at madness central, a couple of juvenile delinquent Democrat Assemblywomen invited “pro-death penalty for American military members” activist Jane Fonda to place a feather in her patouee and lead a conga line from the Speaker’s office to the Governor’s den.  Not a word yet from Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill about the appropriateness of Fonda’s appearance – or from Andy Kim or Tom Malinowski, for that matter.  But hey Assemblywomen, keep it up.  If that’s the fashion, keep it up and you’ll soon find yourself in… Congress?  NOT!

Thursday
Nov152018

Democrats piss on Vets… butt kiss traitor Jane Fonda

It figures. But what a way to celebrate last Tuesday!

The servants of corrupt political machines – politicians like Democrat Assemblywoman Britnee Timberlake – have learned to cry “racist” as a way to take the focus off their own bad behavior.  No doubt Timberlake and fellow Democrat Shavonda Sumter will soon be crying “racist” after inviting the infamous traitor and Hollywood One Percenter “Hanoi Jane” Fonda to an event designed to destroy the jobs of thousands of New Jersey workers.

While we have no argument with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, swapping a minimal wage plus tips for a totally reportable hourly wage might help the government collect more taxes, but it will leave most tipped workers with less real income than they have now.  We don’t expect members of the political class to understand such working class considerations.  Timberlake pockets a six-figure income from two public jobs, Sumter also earns a nice six figure income, and as for Hanoi Jane – that harridan has spent enough on beauty products to provide hot meals to an average-sized school district for an eternity.

Maybe Timberlake and Sumter are too young and ignorant to know better, but once upon a time, their “hero” Ms. Fonda had these kind thoughts about the members of our military who had been captured by the enemies of America:

Yeah, this really happened and it happened in the lifetimes of people who are still alive today.  This isn’t some historical notion.  But hey, these are the Democrats. This is who they are now.

It doesn’t need to be this way.  The Speaker of the Assembly can say something about it. 

So can the Governor…

So can Navy Pilot Mikie Sherrill…

Or Tom “Him Pretty” Malinowski…

Or Andy “winner of the hot cross bun with bar” Kim…

Come on boys (and Navy Pilot Mikie)… Say Something!

Show us that you are more than garden variety soft-core corporate fashionista lefties.  Show us.  We’d love to believe.

Hey Mikie… here are some of your fellow Navy pilots returning home.  Whose side are you on???  The “HERO” of your fellow Democrats would have had them all shot.

Here is the press release the scumbags put out:

Actress and Political Activist Jane Fonda to join Labor, Community, and Legislative Leaders for Policy Briefing on NJ’s Campaign to Raise Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

November 14, 2018, 5:20 pm | in

Actress and Political Activist Jane Fonda to join Labor, Community, and Legislative Leaders for Policy Briefing on NJ’s Campaign to Raise Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

NEWARK– New Jersey Working Families Alliance, Restaurant Opportunities Center Action, Rutgers Center for Women and Work, Rutgers Center for for Innovation in Worker Organizing, and Assemblywomen Shavonda Sumter and Britnee Timberlake will host a breakfast and policy briefing on the campaign to raise New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. Joining them will be actress and political activist Jane Fonda, who has been a vocal advocate for One Fair Wage, a campaign to raise the minimum wage for all workers by ending the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers across the United States. The organizations expect to have several community and activist leaders from across the state in attendance.

Legislative leaders have pledged to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by the end of 2018 or beginning of 2019. Increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour will lift up the wages of over 1.2 million New Jersey workers and their families. Recently, Assemblywomen Timberlake and Sumter introduced Assembly bills to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the course of 5 years and a bill to eliminate the tipped sub-minimum wage over the course of 8 years. The event is open to the press.

WHAT: Breakfast and Policy Briefing on New Jersey’s Fight for $15 with Jane Fonda

WHEN: Thursday, November 15, 2018, 10am-11:30am

WHERE: Ackerson Hall, Room 101, 180 University Avenue, Newark NJ

WHO:

Actress and Political Activist Jane Fonda

Assemblywoman Shavonda Sumter

Assemblywoman Britnee Timberlake

Saru Jayaraman, Restaurant Opportunities Center Action

Analilia Mejia, New Jersey Working Families Alliance

Paula Voos, economist and professor at Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations

Rutgers University Center for Women and Work

Rutgers University Center for Innovation in Worker Organization

Thursday
Nov152018

Suburban Democrats ran and won on property taxes.

Has Fred Snowflake ever run a political campaign in his life?  We suspect not.

If he had, he’d spend less time in the shithouse dreaming and more time paying attention to how campaigns are run and what’s said.  But Snowflake – who writes for a website owned by a slimebag vendor who sells shit to governments that spend taxpayers’ money – does most of his work behind the latrine door these days.  His latest spin is that taxes don’t matter… especially property taxes.

Did Snowflake deliberately forget about the Trump tax cut and SALT?  Was it not discussed enough for him?  Did property taxes not emerge as a central issue in the congressional campaigns in New Jersey? 

As “proof” for his silly argument he offers us the Democrats elected to Congress from Northwest New Jersey – Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill.  According to Snowflake…

“taxes are high in New Jersey. But taxes are not the only issue.  More and more it seems that suburbanites are voting in favor of issues unrelated to taxes. They are voting in favor of abortion rights for women, a more welcoming policy toward immigrants, stronger gun control laws and an environmental policy based on science. That seemed to drive this year’s election in New Jersey…”

Seemed?  Only if you were in the shithouse. 

We looked… but cannot find a Democrat cable or broadcast advertisement that unpacks that particular issues grid.  Apparently, it wasn’t in their armory. 

What we actually got was this:  Democrats cleverly portraying themselves as Republicans on all the most important issues.  Hey, check it out for yourselves.  Go to Josh Gottheimer or Mikie Sherrill’s YouTube pages and watch the ads.

Immigration?  Are you kidding?  What you will find it this…

“Lower Taxes. Jersey Values.”

“Cut Property Taxes”

“Think your property taxes are too high?”

“Navy Pilot – Prosecutor – Mom”

“I’ll fight to restore your property tax deduction.”

Josh Gottheimer’s campaign doesn’t post any ads that could reasonably be called liberal.  Mikie Sherrill’s posts two conservative ads for every liberal ad.  And nobody says shit about immigration.

See what Snowflake is doing here?   

Snowflake’s vendor owner – a Hillary Clinton insider – is trying to convince New Jersey Republicans to screw themselves again, even as they pull that old Bill Clinton maneuver of co-opting and running on Republicans issues. Anyone remember welfare-reform? Or how about “the era of big government is over”?

It’s an old trick.  And a good one.  Almost as good as the one Mikie Sherrill pulled on the constituents she’s about to represent.  Who is she? Really? 

In common with most of Democrat moes who ran this year, they all started out dancing in the street with pussy hats on, attending protests, and pretending they were back in the 1960’s (which none of them were in the first place).  The heady days of the Women’s March was that kind of Disneyland.  Then, after winning their primaries, they all suddenly became centrists and “bi-partisan”. Not a mention of transgender anything. Republican Bob Hugin spent more promoting abortion and gay marriage than all the Democrats put together.  Mikie Sherrill became “Navy Pilot – Prosecutor – Mom” in other words “War – Cops – and Motherhood”.  That ain’t a liberal message.

In the aftermath of Sherrill’s victory last week, most commentators missed the real reason why she won:  She got to pick her opponent for the General Election(and it was anyone other than the incumbent, Rodney Frelinghuysen).  Yep, her pussy hatted minions pushed the incumbent Republican out of the race (a fact Jay Webber should have played on).  You know, that well-respected, well-heeled, bi-partisan Vietnam War vet… yeah, him. 

For that, she needed her grassroots.  All those crazies who pissed and moaned and carried on, and who, like a switch, suddenly dropped out of sight to return as blandly suburban or mildly eccentric door-to-door volunteers spitting out the party line.  Admirable discipline.  

We can only speculate as to what would have happened had the Navy pilot come up against someone who had actually tasted war.  Someone with a real record of bi-partisan accomplishment.  Who had attended to constituent service.  Or, if the incumbent had departed in a more timely fashion, a new candidate – without the encumbrance of a messy primary – who would have had the time and resources to use all those individual crazies as the means to define just who Mikie Sherrill really is.  We can only speculate.

Still, the road is long.  The opportunity will present itself again.

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”  - Winston Churchill

 

Wednesday
Nov142018

The GOP is the natural party of suburban New Jersey.

Matt Rooney is right.  The Democrats’ unwillingness to end the redistribution of funds from the suburbs to failing urban schools remains the single biggest driver of our state’s nightmarish, neighborhood-killing property taxes.” 

The Democrats could – and should – be challenged on their cruel insistence that economically distressed families in suburban and rural New Jersey be made to subsidize rich corporations and wealthy professionals in places like Jersey City and Hoboken.  The tax breaks with which urban Democrat bosses favor contributors to political campaigns are paid for with subsidies from struggling communities throughout New Jersey.  

There is more than enough corporate and professional money in urban New Jersey to cover the education of the children who live there.  If those interested parties were made responsible for the children of their communities the educational systems there would be subject to a greater degree of local oversight and on-the-spot scrutiny by those stakeholders.  Absent that, under the current system of subsidy from afar, those subsidized stakeholders are more than content to allow political corruption to flourish, just so long as they keep getting their discount.

It is shameful for One Percenters like Phil Murphy, Steve Fulop, Lacey Rzeszowski, and Saily Avelenda to don their pussy hats and try to argue that their tax breaks are about “helping poor children”.  Not when their “philanthropy” is paid for by over-taxed, working class families trying to stay out of foreclosure. There is nothing LIBERAL about screwing over working class families to pay for propping-up corrupt urban political machines. 

As far back as the administration of Governor Jim McGreevey, the Democrats knew that half of the state’s economically disadvantaged children lived outside the over-funded urban Abbott school districts.  More than a decade has passed since the state Supreme Court issued its report on this – and NOTHING has been done to overturn the fundamental unfairness of the state’s system of funding education.  

Since the economic crash of 2008, suburban and rural poverty has grown in New Jersey and throughout the United States.  That’s what the liberal to centrist Brookings Institute has argued in their published studies.  Brookings’ experts also note that, since the 1960’s, most of the nation’s anti-poverty programs have been aimed at the cities.  

Rural and suburban New Jersey lack even the basic infrastructure to help get people back on their feet – on top of which local municipalities are robbed of the property taxes that could help with this.  Everything is taken from them – in the name of the urban poor – but for the use of the One Percent and the corporations they control.   

Corrupt urban political machines, corrupt vendors, rich corporations, and wealthy professionals all make out under the Abbott regime.  The genuinely poor remain trapped in schools that, for all the money spent per pupil, fail to educate their students or prepare them for the working world.  The kids are used as pawns, as an excuse, for the corruption and those getting rich from it. 

More than a decade ago a prescient writer by the name of Paul Mulshine argued that the life of every child mattered and that the state needed to provide a uniform baseline of funding.  Instead, the Democrats have ensured that the money continues to miss those poor children living outside the Abbotts, while failing to help those living within the Abbotts.   

The question is, will those currently charged with leading New Jersey Republicans into their next battle recognize these stark facts starring them in the face?  Will they make use of them?  If not for their own political ambitions and those of their party – Republican leaders should be urged to do so on behalf of over-taxed working people, their children, and for the child pawns being used but not served.

New Jersey Republicans face extinction.  Their fighting prowess is minimal.  It has reached the point where any plausible Democrat candidate with a modicum of funding can expect to simply march in and take most of their remaining legislative seats. Not in Northwest New Jersey mind you, where every Democrat on the ballot was just ruthlessly slaughtered and where the Democrat who challenged Senator Steve Oroho in 2017 lost her school board seat. This is where the pussy hats run into a phalanx of flannel shirts (and those are the women!).   

In his column (https://savejersey.com/2018/11/n-j-republicans-are-letting-sweeney-appropriate-their-strongest-argument-rooney/), Matt Rooney raises the question of whether Assembly Republican Leader Jon Bramnick is up to the task of fighting the Democrats next year.  Whether he is a “wartime consiglieri” or not.  We hope that he is, but at the present, he appears to be more concerned about how he is perceived within the “bubbles” of Trenton and Westfield (whose median income is double that of Sussex County).   

Assembly Leader Bramnick would do well to break out of this bubble.  “Bubble land” doesn’t understand America.  It is too rich, too privileged, too unconcerned with the basics of shelter and debt to worry about those who are.  Bubble land never understood the rise of Donald Trump.  Never got the levels of pain and disappointment that the eight gray years of Barack Obama brought to those working class people who voted for him in 2008.  They put it down to “racism” when it was really about the threat of foreclosure – of losing… everything

We urge Jon Bramnick and the other leaders of the NJGOP to embark on an experiment in listening and learning. Not the usual photo-op in Newark… go to where the newpoverty is.  Visit a food pantry in what everyone thinks is a middle class town.  Watch the people who once had a good job, with benefits and a pension, but who now work three without.  Notice the high priced automobiles, now over a decade old.  Drive around and take note of the “for sale” signs.  Visit an encampment of working people who have lost their homes. 

This isn’t a time for rallying around a corrupt Establishment that – uses poor people as an excuse to rape working people to make rich people richer.  No matter how you personally feel about the Democrats responsible, these are bad policiesand they must be challenged.  The choice must be one of clear-blue-water between the parties.  Again, if not for your own political ambitions and those of your party, do it for the over-taxed working people, for their children, and for the child pawns being used but not served.

Matt Rooney makes the point very clearly:  “Taxpayers want an advocate… not a mediator.” Amen.

Tuesday
Nov132018

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.