Get your hands out of our pockets!

Did you have one of those friends in college who, whenever a group of you were out together, either left his wallet in the dorm or was a little short or had some other excuse why he or she couldn't pay their share for the night's entertainment? And they always promised they'd make it up to you if you could just take care of their portion of the bill this time?

We kind of get that feeling all over again when we read through the documents that comprise Ordinance 17-80 on this week's Trenton City Council Docket.  Approval of this ordinance would grant Woodrose Properties Golden Swan Urban Renewal LLC a ten year tax abatement for the property at 101 South Warren Street.

Previously, we filled you in on some of the history of the property...how the city has bent over backwards for the owner, Woodrose Properties. And we also noted how Woodrose's principal, former Senator Robert Torricelli, has had no problem contributing money to the campaigns of past and present mayors and council members in the city of Trenton.

Let's take a little deeper dive into the Torricelli/Woodrose request for the tax abatement.

On page three of Attachment "A" of the ordinance, the developer describes the proposed project as a
"substantial rehabilitation improvement and conversion of the existing mixed-use building."

 In essence, the building owner wants to update the HVAC system and convert the current commercial office space on the upper floors to residential space. The ground floor retail is currently occupied by a Subway sandwich shop (the "restaurant") and a dental office which opened in September of this year.

A little further down in the package, the developer estimates $181,000 in construction costs, $45,000 for professional fees and a marketing/advertising cost of $4,500. This brings the entire cost to $230,500.  And the work is anticipated to take 4 months.

They are asking the city to grant a 10 year tax abatement of 10% of the estimated annual revenue of the finished project minus a deduction for a vacancy rate. Per the calculations in the application, the annual net income of the project would be $143,404.80 and the city, if the abatement is granted would receive $14,340 a year in taxes.

Here's what has left us scratching our heads. The developer states in the application that...

...based upon the occupancy of the existing apartments...and the location in downtown Trenton (near multiple State Offices and private offices) ...there is a strong demand for market-rate apartments....

OK. If, and that is a big if, there is a strong demand for market-rate apartments, why are they calculating on a vacancy rate? Are they just being conservative in the figuring?

We happen to know someone with rental properties just a block away from the Golden Swan. We asked him about this alleged "strong demand" for market-rate apartments. He suggested that, based upon his experience with his two buildings, the assumption was not true. Our friend admitted that he hasn't under taken a recent study but he noted that Torricelli didn't offer up any proof either.
(NOTE: there is some sort of exhibit referenced in but not included with the documents we received that was pointed to as depicting this demand).

Just to make sure that the city administration on the governing body see how important it is for them to approve this abatement, Torricelli offers up this subtle threat:

Essentially, he says that without the abatement, there can be no conversions and without those, he will "shut down the building."

Does he not realize that the city has ordinances on the books about vacant and abandoned buildings and that should he "shut down" this one, he'd still have to maintain it and keep it secured unless/until it might be sold?

Is blackmailing the city council and the mayor the way to get what one wants?

Folks, we are talking about a private, for-profit investor who obtained the property for $1, had the city do some demo and remediation work for him, gave him various PILOTS on parts of the projects and who has the two large first floor spaces rented. His taxes went up and now he wants the city to cut him a break or he'll pack up and go home.

Not likely. He's got too much other property in town to just walk away.

Nothing about this project screams "revitalization".  The work of saving the historic building is already done. The "conversion" is not going to add to the city's employment rolls. Page five of the application clearly states that there will be no additional staff hired to manage the building (and, it should be noted, those that currently do are located outside of the city). They claim that the additional retail space when rented will bring jobs to downtown, but we believe the retail space to already be rented. (It appears as though this package was prepared last spring but only just recently submitted to the city and doesn't take into account that there is now a dental office located in the building). And, of course, there is the ever popular "construction jobs" that will be "created"; an estimated equivalency of 12 full-time jobs over the four month construction period. Is this really worth a 10 year tax abatement in a city strapped for cash?

Why can't Mr. Torricelli reach into his very deep pockets and fund the conversion himself? He certainly isn't shy about opening his checkbook.

A quick and by no means exhaustive search of NJ ELEC records show that since 1981, Torricelli has personally (this is his money, not the money in his various campaign accounts) given over $117,000 to various political campaigns (we actually have records of contributions he's made that for some reason don't show up in the ELEC database and thus aren't included in that number).  Over half of that amount, $64,500, was given out since December 24, 2013. (Yes, we thought that was an interesting date, too).

Why did we start counting on Christmas Eve of 2013? Because according to the ELEC records that was the date that Torricelli contributed $2,000 to Eric Jackson's 2014 run for mayor. Between that date and June 5, 2014, Torricelli (and his Woodrose Properties, LLC) gave a total of $6,200 to the Jackson campaign. He exceeded the $2,600 limit for the regular campaign (May election) by giving $1,000 from the LLC (an NJ ELEC no-no). Kevin Moriarty explained it here and here. 

As has been noted repeatedly, we have no idea who may have contributed how much to Eric Jackson in the last three years because it has been that long since he has filed a campaign report. 

North Ward Councilwoman Marge Caldwell Wilson also received a modest $250 contribution from Torricelli in May of 2014.

Campaign contributions are not the only way that Torricelli shows his generosity. After leaving the senate in the wake of a campaign finance scandal, he set up a private foundation with some of his unused campaign funds.

Unlike Eric Jackson who can't seem to file any paperwork on time, you can find the tax returns from Torricelli's Rosemont Foundation online. Here are links to the ones from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

As we have stated before, foundations and other non-profits set up by public officials offer them ample ways to circumvent campaign finance rules and "spread the wealth." For instance, there was the infamous "Turkey Give Away"  on December 22, 2013.  We all know it was just a coincidence that he was seeking approval to build a "temporary" (it's still there today, four years later) surface parking lot on the old Pete Lorenzo's restaurant site at about the same time. The fact that his 2013 tax return for the foundation shows over $8,700 spent for the turkeys has no relation to him having gotten the go ahead on his plan.

When you look at the website for the Rosemont Foundation or any of the tax returns, you will see that Torricelli has a soft spot or animal welfare. It shouldn't be a surprise then that in 2014 the foundation donated $1,000 to the Lady Margaret Animal Foundation, set up by Trenton's North Ward Councilwoman, Margaret Caldwell Wilson.

 And of course, we cannot forget Mayor Jackson's no longer tax-exempt Moving Trenton Together foundation. The one that conned the good people at the War Memorial into only charging them the (half - price) government rate for renting the theater. Yeah that one.

Well, even though Mayor Jackson couldn't be bothered to file the required 990s, the Rosemont Foundation filed theirs. You guessed it...in 2015 Moving Trenton Together received $2,500 from Torricelli's foundation.

Now, we are not saying that any of this is illegal. And we are not saying that any of Torricelli's largesse is meant to influence any decisions on the part of the Jackson administration, the council or any other government body that can give a thumbs up or down to things like planning and zoning approvals or tax abatements.

What we are saying is that Mr. Torricelli certainly has the ways and means to do the work at the Golden Swan himself. If it is such a good investment that will make the property profitable, then he should dig into his own pocket and keep his hand out of the taxpayer's!


{NOTE: while we were writing this, the Trentonian's David Foster posted a piece on the application for a long term tax abatement. He covers much of the same ground as we have here, but he's got a couple of interesting quotes from Mr. Torricelli.}

How much can the city afford to keep giving?

Former Senator Seeks Tax Abatement For Downtown Property

The above item appears on the docket for the December 7, 2017 Trenton City Council meeting. We find it appalling that Golden Swan Urban Renewal, LLC, whose principal is former Senator Robert Torricelli, would ask the city to reduce the property taxes for his "investment" property on S. Warren Street.

Back in August of this year, Kevin Moriarty, revisted the topic of what he called the Revaluation of La-La Land. It was a topic he'd written about it in January, twice in fact.  And now Torricelli wants a long-term tax abatement.

Well, we say "Too bad!"  Senator Torricelli has taken more than enough from Trenton. It's time he starts paying his fair share.

The Golden Swan property was acquired by Torricelli (through his Woodrose Properties Golden Swan LLC) in 2005. He bought it from the city of Trenton for the grand sum of one dollar. In December of 2007, the city granted Torricelli UEZ funds to do some of the renovation work on the buildings. (This was all covered in some of our earliest postings on this blog. You can find one story here and another here.)

EDIT: courtesy of Kevin Moriarty, we now have a copy of Ordinance 17-80 wherein the developer is requesting a 10 year tax abatement so he can essentially replace some of the buildings systems and convert rental office space to rental residential space. He is doing this under threat of abandoning the project altogether if he doesn't get the abatement because the properties are not profitable. 

It was pointed out at the time that there were some serious monetary contributions that flowed from Torricelli to then Mayor Doug Palmer's campaign and foundation. Not that that in anyway influenced the city's decision to sell the property for $1 and then throw in UEZ money later on.

After a decade, with a Subway store located on the ground floor and some office and residential space above, Torricelli is coming to the city, again; hand out; looking for a "long-term tax abatement."  All the while, the everyday folks are scrambling to meet their newly increased property tax bills. Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

Now, we can't point to any possible contributions from Torricelli to current Mayor Eric Jackson's campaign or private foundation that may have influenced the decision to bring the tax abatement to council for approval. But only because Jackson has not filed the required tax returns and election reports where such contributions, if there were any, might show up.

What we do know is this, any member of Trenton's governing body who votes to approve this long-term tax abatement is showing that they care more for a non-resident investor who has continually made money off of the city's largesse than they do for the people who actually voted them into office. The best move the council could take would be to vote this ordinance down immediately.

Fixed price

Yesterday we took you through the saga of the never formed Trenton Employment Commission and the money spent ($23,000+) on Hill Consultants to coordinate Mayor Jackson's invisible Local Employment Initiative. There is so much wrong with that situation that we neglected to include one other little tiny problem that needs to be addressed.

On July 8, 2015 then director of Housing and Economic Development for the City of Trenton Monique King-Viehland prepared and sent a memo to city Business Administrator Terry McEwen. In that memo she recaps the legislative history behind the implementation of the Trenton Resident Employment Policy. She mentions the request for proposal from parties interested in serving as a coordinator for the development and implementation of the program and that Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the RFP. King-Viehland then goes on to recommend awarding the one year, $50,000 contract to Hill Consultants.

There is another document that may have been attached to that memo (the docs as received from the clerk's office were somewhat disorganized). It's a tally sheet of sorts summarizing the results of the RFP process.

The document shows there was only one response to the RFP, that of Hill Consultants. Further down the page, there is a line for "Hourly rate" and that rate is clearly entered in as $100.00.

Interestingly, on the six invoices Charles Hill submitted to the city, the rate is posted as $125.00 per hour.

Nowhere in any of the documents provided in response to our OPRA request is there anything indicating a change in the hourly rate, up or down. Or a correction to the rate published on the tally sheet.

So what happened? How did the rate jump from $100 per hour to $125 per hour?

Was it a clerical error made while the purchasing department was preparing the RFP evaluation sheet? Was the rate always $125 an hour or did the consultant just arbitrarily and unilaterally increase his rate?

In an administration where financial missteps seem to occur with regularity, why would we be surprised if this friend and supporter of the mayor felt comfortable in increasing his billing rate and nobody questioned it.

Maybe if the city council decides to take this up with Mayor Jackson, they can find out why the hourly rate changed between the July and November of 2015.

Whatever happened to the City of Trenton's Resident Employment Initiative?

Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson not only rates a failing grade with regards to the management and reporting of his campaign finances (3 years of past due filings) and his Moving Trenton Together private foundation, he’s earns a big fat zero for his Trenton Resident Employment Initiative.

In September of 2014 Trenton City Council passed ordinance 14-42 and created the Trenton Employment Commission. This was done to support the administration’s new policy of seeking at least 25% local employment by contractors on government funded/sponsored projects. The Trenton Employment Commission was to be comprised of the Mayor or his/her designee, a representative from the City Council, a representative from a labor union and four residents of Trenton (the labor rep and the four residents to be appointed by the Mayor).

The stated purpose of the commission is to "meet monthly to oversee the implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the Trenton Resident Employment Policy."

The ordinance was introduced by the Council President (we assume on behalf of the Administration) in August of 2014 just over a month after Jackson took office. The introduction and the adoption by council a month later were both unanimous.

It wasn’t until 13 months after the adoption of the ordinance that the city council approved resolution 15-463, a one year, $50,000 contract with Hill Consultants LLC to coordinate and implement the Trenton Resident Employment Initiative. Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the city’s RFP.

Not surprising for Trenton’s local government, there was some controversy at the time. The contract was pulled from consideration in July of 2015 because ofquestions from the city overseers at the Department of Community Affairs. 

When the resolution awarding the contract finally came before council in October of 2015, mention was made of the fact that Charles Hill, the consulting firm’s principal, had contributed $500 to Eric Jackson’s campaign in 2013. While this did not violate the city’s Pay-to-Play law, it was enough to make South Ward councilman George Muschal vote against the contract. {And it should be remembered that we cannot tell if Mr. Hill made any subsequent contributions to Eric Jackson’s campaign because of the latter’s failure to file reports for the past three years}. North Ward councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson abstained from voting.

It has been two years since Hill Consultants was retained. What has happened since?

Very little, it seems.

Records obtained via OPRA request from the city show that $23,000 of the approved $50,000 was paid to Hill Consultants between December 2015 and June 2016. After May of 2016, Hill Consultants stopped billing the city. There is no documentation as to why and very little in the way of work product to show for the time and money spent.

And when asked, the city replied that the Employment Commission never met nor was anyone even appointed to serve on it.

As noted above, Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the city’s RFP for the Trenton Employment Policy coordinator. The firm’s principal, Charles Hill, is credited with “over 10 years of experience in both the government, not for profit and private sector” in the documents included in the proposal to the city.

Reading through the proposal and researching the firm reveals a couple of ironies. First, Hill Consultants lists an office address in Trenton. According to forms included in the proposal, Charles Hill lists an out of state home address. In a form required under the very initiative he was being hired to coordinate, each contractor or subcontractor must report to the city the number of Trenton residents hired. In this case, none. Not that it was required but the consultant hired to coordinate this local employment initiative was himself not a city resident at the time he was awarded the contract!

The proposal also states that Hill Consultants is a subsidiary of Falcon Ventures, a private equity firm. The website for Falcon lists the same West State Street address as Hill Consultants. New Jersey business records show that in July of 2016 Hill Consultants lost its business status for failure to fileannual reports for two consecutive years. (Sound familiar to anyone?) FalconVentures and Falcon Investments (all part of the series of companies created by Charles Hill) lost their business registration status in June of this year. 

That’s right, the non-resident business consultant failed to file and not just for the consultant company but for the other LLC’s he was a part of. More irony.

An aside: During our records search we also discovered Trenton Partners for (Economic) Development was formed between Charles Hill, Anthony Stewart and Carmen Melendez (she of Tony Mack fame) in February of 2009. That company has also had its business status revoked for failure to file annual reports. And its IRS tax exempt status. The pattern continues.

Next we looked at the invoices submitted to the city by Charles Hill for his services. There are six of them, one for each month, November 2015 through April 2016.

Most of the items listed are for meetings or conference calls with Diana Rogers, the director of Housing and Economic Development for the city. There is one, one hour meeting with Mayor Jackson. There are several blocks of time charged for “Meeting with Hill Consulting Team”, which is a little odd because as far as we can tell, Hill Consultants is a one person shop. (Hill billed time for meeting with himself?)

There is rarely any comment about subject or topics discussed at these meeting or in these phone calls and when there is it simply states something like “discuss Resident Employment Tasks”.  Well, isn’t that rather evident since that was what Hill was hired for?  What about the meat of those meetings; what tasks, specifically, were discussed?

In the invoice marked April 2016, submitted for work performed in March of that year, there is finally some time marked for creating work product. Specifically, 10 hours were billed for the development of a Section 3 conflict of interest policy and 30 hours for an overview and presentation for the commission.

We took a look at the conflict of interest document and it seemed pretty straight forward, boiler plate type language that had been formatted to fit into what we presume to be the Trenton city code book style. A quick Google search turned up various links to similar conflict of interest forms. It sure didn’t take us any 10 hours to do that. A good cut, paste and format session would probably take no more than two hours, three tops.

The work claimed for the overview and presentation to the commission is really intriguing. First of all, we had already established that the commission was never formed and thus never met. Fifteen hours to create the never used powerpoint presentation seems a little high to us.

There are was another combined 10 hours charged for working on FAQ and flow chart attachments to the HUD Section 3 guidelines. Again, seems a little high but what do we know. Maybe Hill is a slow, methodical worker.

What did raise some concerns was the five hours of “Meetings with Community Groups”. There are no specifics given for these meetings. No dates, times, or attendance lists were provided. How does anyone even know if these meetings actually occurred or not? Wouldn’t a prudent steward of public money require and retain back up for auditing purposes?

The invoice labeled May 2016 for hours worked in April also includes mention of meetings with local contractors and community organizations plus development of an outreach document.  We received no example of the document from the city. Again there was no proof that any meetings were held, when they were held, or who attended.

We reached out to noted local contractor Tracey Syphax to see if he had been contacted or made aware of any meetings. His response was that he had no interaction with the consultant nor was he aware of any local contractor who benefited from this program.

We also inquired of John Harmon who leads the Trenton-based African American Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey if he had any contact with Hill or the city with regards to this local employment initiative. His response mirrored Tracey Syphax’s; No contact.

In amongst the papers we did receive from the city was an agenda for an April14, 2016 meeting of the Section 3 Local Hiring Commission. Again, when we followed up with the city we were told the commission was never formed and no meetings were ever held.

Another irregularity we caught was with the purchase orders submitted by Housing and Economic Director Diana Rogers requesting payment to Hill. The first PO was numbered 16-04659 and was for the December 2015 invoice (hours worked in November). The items in the PO pretty much match the invoice. Then Ms. Rogers appears to get lazy or sloppy or both.

The January PO, and all subsequent ones, use the same number of 16-05251. In fact she uses the exact same PO, with Hill’s verification signature dated in January, 2016, just adding handwritten notes telling what month it was for, what the amount being billed that month is, and then the check number that was issued to pay it. We’re not certified municipal comptrollers or finance directors but this doesn’t appear to be the best, cleanest record keeping.

Do they city’s auditors ever catch any of this stuff?

Where is the city council in all of this. Seven of them passed the ordinance creating the commission that was never formed; the commission one of their own was supposed to sit on. Are they not the least bit curious as to what happened to the commission?

Five of them voted to hire the consultant for $50,000 for a year. He billed the city for almost half of that with little to show. Six months later, he was gone. Aren’t they the least bit concerned about what happened?

And what about the Department of Community Affairs? They had concerns at the outset, did they not think it prudent to check back with the city to see how things were progressing? Or maybe their leaving it for the incoming administration of Governor-elect Phil Murphy to sort out. It's announced that incoming Lt. Governor Sheila Oliver will head up the DCA, maybe she can straighten this mess out.

Regardless, it’s yet another failure for the city; another plan of Jackson’s that was never fully executed.

Intermezzo

What do you think about this?

In April, 2016, the Trenton Housing Authority hired Mayor Eric Jackson's sister, Pamela Brooks, to fill an $85,000 position as the Director of Resident and Community Services.

You can find the job description from the THA here.

On the last page, the education requirements are listed:

EDUCATION
Required: Bachelor's degree in Social Sciences, Urban Studies, Public Administration or related field.

Preferred: MSW 

As pointed out in David Foster's Trentonian article linked above and confirmed by Brooks' resume, she has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Rutgers.

That certainly isn't the MSW (Masters of Social Work) that was preferred in the job description.

Misleading Trenton Together

Misrepresentation and misstatement seem to be a family affair for Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson and his sister, Pamela Brooks. Their handling of Jackson’s Moving Trenton Together private foundation provides ongoing evidence that they have no idea about how to properly manage their affairs and have no problem trying to cover up by giving misinformation.

The foundation lost its tax-exempt status with the IRS for failing to file the required tax returns for three consecutive years. It has lost its New Jersey state business entity status for not filing the required annual reports for two consecutive years. MTT never registered with the state charitable organization directory. On top of all that, it appears as though MTT used Jackson’s title as mayor to get the “government” rate for renting the War Memorial for holiday concerts when they should have paid a higher, non-profit rate.  And then there is the possibility that individuals on the city of Trenton payroll may have been taking care of some MTT business while on the city’s clock.

Politicians often set up some sort of non-profit as a means to circumvent election campaign finance rules on who can give money, how much can be given (plus offering a tax deduction to donors) and what the money can be spent on. MTT was Formed in December of 2014 by Jackson, his wife, Denice, and his sister, Pam Brooks. In an article published that month, Times reporter Jenna Pizzi wrote, “The mayor said he wanted to form the group, rather than partner with the many nonprofits already registered in Trenton, because there are efforts he would like to move on that will compliment the activities of existing groups.”


While there is nothing overtly illegal or improper about setting up a non-profit like MTT, care should be taken to keep it separate from any official city business. No work should be performed for the corporation by city employees while on city time; no city resources expended in the execution of MTT work, etc.  (Just look at the recent scandal involving the Friends of Mercer County Parks non-profit and the Bannon brothers as an example of what can happen).

Corporations in New Jersey must file an annual report. At its most basic, it is a five-minute on-line exercise followed by a payment to the state. It keeps the business status active for a year. The state sends out notices of renewal to the registered agent of record three months prior to the due date. The website provides all current information and not only allows you to file the current report, but you can resolve any deficiencies in prior filing years. Failure to file for two consecutive years results in the state revoking the business’s status.


Moving Trenton Together never filed any annual reports and had its business registration revoked in July of 2016.

The registered agent for MTT is David Minchello. His name also appears on the application for IRS tax exempt status.  At the time of formation, Minchello was employed by the city of Trenton as it Law Director.  Did he prepare and submit the paperwork on city time or his own?  We really can’t say.

We do know this; Minchello used the address of his firm, Antonelli Minchello PC, in Union when registering MTT in December of 2014. In the spring of 2015, the partners closed their firm and joined the DeCotiis Fitzpatrick & Cole firm. Questions arose surrounding the fact that Minchello was the city law director and his new firm had a contract to work for the city as well. He left the city’s employ in the summer of 2015. 

When Minchello resigned as law director for the city, nobody thought to change the registered agent.  Renewal notices were likely sent to Minchello’s former address and not forwarded.  Had Jackson/MTT been an actual client of Minchello, would he not have taken care to see that the records were updated and/or a new agent listed? Or did Minchello feel this “duty” was no longer his responsibility because he was no longer a Jackson appointee/city employee?

Certainly, neither Jackson, his wife, nor his sister could be bothered to pay attention to the legal necessities of paperwork regarding their private foundation. It’s easily done, again, on line. But they couldn’t be bothered.  So the business registration has lapsed for failure to file.

Charities in New Jersey are supposed to register with the Division of ConsumerAffairs. There are exemptions for charities which receive less than $10,000 in annual gross receipts.  It is possible that MTT falls into the category, but we don’t know because they haven’t filed any tax returns (more on that in a minute). We do know that a search of the NJ Charitable Organization database turns up no filing for Moving Trenton Together. Doug Palmer’s Trenton First Initiative is there. So is the now defunct Tony Mack Cares Foundation. Even presumed Mayoral candidate Paul Perez’s “Partnerships for Trenton” non-profit has filed the required reports{Edited for clarity}. There is nothing from or about Jackson’s MTT.

The Trentonian reported in December of 2016 that MTT had yet to file any tax returns.  Indeed, in August, the IRS published the revocation of MTT’s   tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns for three consecutive years. As a private foundation, MTT was required to file the 990-PF form. Yet they failed to do so for any of their first three years in existence…2014, 2015, or 2016.

Even after the published reports of December 2016, MTT failed to file their returns. As of May of this year the IRS deemed them delinquent and revoked the non-profits tax exempt status. Public notice was posted to the IRS website in August of this year.

The Trentonian reported the following from Jackson: “With the filing, you get an initial couple years to file it,” the first-term mayor said. “We had attempted to do it internally. There were some errors with it. It came back rejected and we didn’t get it back timely. Now, I have a certified public accountant (CPA) group that’s working on it as we speak to get it done so I can get my reinstatement. We’re curing that now.”Unfortunately, Jackson’s statement is incorrect. Organizations must file a tax return with the IRS each and every year. In fact, it says so very clearly in the IRS determination letter sent to Jackson’s home address advising him of MTT receiving tax exempt status:

“You’re required to file Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947 (a) (1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation, annually, whether or not you have income or activity during the year. If you don’t file a required return or notice for three consecutive years, your exempt status will be automatically revoked. “

There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. MTT was required to file. Period. There is no pass given for “an initial couple of years.” 

As for the statement that the returns were filed but had errors and came back rejected, we wanted to see if that was true. We submitted an FOIA request to the IRS for copies of any returns filed by MTT, erroneous or not. The response came back stating the 990s were "either unavailable, aren't open to public inspection under Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code, or destroyed (if it has been six years since the end of the processing year)".

We know that it hasn’t been six years since the end of the processing year because MTT was only founded in 2014 and thus ruled out that reason for no documents being available.

We checked Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code and determined that it wasn’t applicable to any returns filed by MTT.

That left open the possibility that there aren’t any records available because none were ever filed. To check on that, we called the IRS and spoke with a very nice fellow who answered a few questions with the adviso that he could only give general responses but that I could “read between the lines” to understand what he was saying.

First, we inquired if a tax-exempt organization is a Private Foundation but files the incorrect tax form three years running, would they have their status revoked. He answered in the affirmative.

Then we asked if, as in the case above, the wrong 990s had been filed would there still be records available. He answered in the affirmative.

Anticipating my next question regarding MTT specifically, he answered "At this time, there are no records available."

We take this to mean that there are no records of any 990s filed by MTT because none were filed.

This directly contradicts Jackson’s statement that they filed but the form had errors and was returned to him. That simply does not appear to be the case at all. (As of the date of publication, MTT's tax exempt status is still listed as revoked for failure to file on the IRS website).

In the off chance we are drawing an incorrect conclusion, all Mayor Jackson must do is produce copies of the forms that he says were filed in error and returned. And if they have really engaged a CPA who is “working on curing that now”, show proof.  It’s that simple.  

With no tax returns available that report income and expenditures for the non-profit, we decided to look more closely into the shows MTT put on at the Patriots Theater in December 2014, 2015, and 2016. We submitted an Open Public Records Act request for the contracts and correspondence related to the three events.

We found out that MTT paid the “government” rate of $1500 for renting the theater, a 50% savings over the published rate of $3000 for not-for-profit groups. Interestingly, on the War Memorial’s own website there is no“government” rate but rather a “State Agency” rate available “only to state agency clients conducting government business.” We find it hard to see how MTT meets the definition that would qualify them for the discounted rental rate.

First, MTT by design is supposed to be an entity separate and distinct from the city of Trenton. It is therefore NOT an agency of municipal, county or state government. Secondly, per its incorporation documents, MTT was created for the business purpose of [presenting] “cultural events”. Hardly government business.

We raised the question of the rental rates to individuals at the state and were told,

“As previously communicated, the City of Trenton was represented as the Lessee for these events, so in keeping with past practice, the government rate was charged accordingly.”“The payment arrangements that are made between the Lessee, a sponsor, or a 3^rd party does not impact the rental rate.”“Also, the identification of a concert for the Citizens of Trenton at no charge was deemed a municipal event.”

Indeed, on the three rental applications for the Patriots Theater, the listed organization/Presenter/Renter is listed as “Mayor Eric Jackson.” Was this done to subtly suggest that it was the City of Trenton renting the hall and thus qualify for the lower rental rate?

On the application for 2014, the check box for the renter’s non-profit status was not checked. On the 2015 and 2016 applications, the “Non-profit” box is checked, but not the government one. The War Memorial staff didn’t seem to pick up on the fact that it was not a government agency holding a government business event at the theater.

All the contact information regarding the rentals was directed to Ms. Brooks…we presume at either her or Jackson's home address and personal email (she’s not on the city payroll so there shouldn’t be a city email address for her). From the initial email correspondence in September of 2014 (before the non-profit was officially formed) Ms. Brooks identifies herself as working “on behalf of Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson” and often refers to the Mayor’s concert giving the impression it was a city event.

The security deposit for the December 2014 concert was a “starter” check such as one gets when one first opens a checking account. It was handwritten with the Payer Name and address listed as “Eric E. Jackson, Mayor” and the mayor’s home address and signed by Gilbert K. Bell. Mr. Bell is (or was at the time – we don’t know if there’s been any changes since Jackson hasn’t filed any campaign reports in three years) the treasurer of the Mr. Jackson’s Election Campaign. A second check bore the handwritten Payer name and address of Moving Trenton Together, and was signed by Jackson himself. In either event, this was NOT a city event and we maintain it should not have qualified for the lower rental rate.

And there’s another question here…the security deposit check signed by Mr. Bell in October 22 of 2014 bears the handwritten number “008”.  The second check, signed by Jackson, was dated December 18, 2014 and hand numbered 0002. It is possible that Jackson was originally going to pay for this from his campaign treasury and then decided to form the non-profit to cover the expenses. Probably because of the fewer restrictions on the donations to and expenditures from a non-profit compared to an election campaign account.

The 2015 and 2016 concerts saw checks written on fully printed checks with the Payer name and address of Moving Trenton Together at the Melrose Ave address. The 2015 checks were drawn on an account at Wells Fargo (same as the 2014 checks) but signed by Jackson himself. The 2016 checks were drawn on an account at Investors Bank and signed by Ms. Brooks.

Despite lots of evidence to the contrary, the state seemed to accept that Mayor Eric Jackson’s name on the contracts somehow made this a city (government) activity. Ms. Brooks never appears to offer up the information that this was not an official city sponsored event. Was it deliberate? You decide.

In another email thread received via the same OPRA request we find that at the beginning of 2017, MTT still owed the state money for the 2014 and 2015 rentals. Starting on February 10 of this year, the CFO of the Department of State reported to Ms. Brooks that MTT still owed the state a little over $3200 dollars. It took nearly a month to resolve the problem. The balances were paid by credit card. The outstanding $1000 balance from the 2014 show stemmed from Brooks claiming she thought the security deposit check had been cashed to cover the balance and only found out it had been returned after going through the mayor’s records.

Ms. Brooks should have paid closer attention. On the second page of the standard lease agreement with the War Memorial, it is explained in paragraph 3 (Payment of Fees) that:

A security damage/cleaning deposit of $1000.00 shall also be paid no less than 14 days prior to the event. (Please make this a separate check). The building security deposit of $1000 will be held by the Lessor until after the Event and consequent inspection of the facility. After a satisfactory inspection of the facility, and the after the Lessee has satisfied any and all financial and other obligations under the contract, the building security deposit will be returned to the Lessee.

Yet again, neither Jackson or Brooks seem capable of reading, comprehending and/or following simple directions. The check was returned and not applied to the balance due, just as is spelled out in the rental documents.

Jackson and Brooks and company repeatedly fail to do the right thing in a timely manner. The explanations offered when questioned about their ineptitude are always weak and don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. Jackson’s method of operating is sloppy at best and may border on the unethical. 

Trentonians, think about this if he decides to seek a second term.

Where is Chris Smith?

For an individual who was just elected to his 19^th term as a member of the House of Representatives, Christopher H. Smith seems awfully timid about facing his constituents.

Wednesday night (Feb 22) a non-partisan coalition of groups sought to hear directly from Smith, mostly about his position on the ACA but other matters as well. You would think that Mr. Smith would be savvy enough and comfortable enough to face residents of his district and answer tough questions. He refused and his office has suggested that this isn’t a real town hall since the congressman didn’t convene it.

"Social media has perpetuated this deceit -- a tactic designed to incite disappointment towards the congressman -- but which in reality exploits the concerns of well-meaning and unsuspecting citizens, Jeff Sagnip, Smith's aide, said in a statement to the Asbury Park Press.

Sorry, Mr. Sagnip. The disappointment comes from the fact that the Congressman stopped holding town hall meetings two decades ago. How can Smith say he truly represents the people of his district if he can't meet with them face to face and hear their feelings? 

Smith himself said in a recent interview that his decision not to hold town halls was forced by bad behavior in the past. 

His refusal to meet is as rude and inexcusable as those who may have engaged in "bad behavior" at past town halls. He sought the position as the people's representative; he should have the fortitude to come before his constituents. 

Congressman Smith obviously suffers from the inertia of incumbency and is more interested in preserving his position than representing the 4th District .

See something, say something?

EDITED: 4:41 pm 9/21/16

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson convened a press event to denounce the recent wave of violent crime that has washed over New Jersey’s capital city. During the course of the presentation attended by various levels of state, county and local officials, a broad based approach to combating the violence.

As Greg Wright wrote in the Times:

“Clergy members, law enforcement officials, local and state politicians and others - including state Attorney General Christopher Porrino - then took turns outlining what their organization or agency would do to about the recent shootings and how to prevent future ones.”

“Nearly every speaker called on the community members to join the leaders in the push, calling for a cultural shift within the communities where citizens see crimes occur but don't report them.”

On the same day, news reports revealed that an investigation had been launched into allegations that a Trenton Police K9 Officer had sex with a prostitute, in a TPD facility while on duty.

Unconfirmed reports indicate that other K9 Officers may have had knowledge of the incident. If that is true, it sort of negates the request from the Mayor, Police Director Ernest Parrey and other officials for the community to report crimes they are witness to.

The relationship between any law enforcement agency, especially a local police department, and the community it is sworn to protect and serve is based upon mutual respect for each other and the laws that govern us all.

The recent high profile incidents of police involved fatal shootings has weakened the community police partnership. Trust in local departments is flagging…whether deserved or not.

While Trenton has thus far escaped any of the incidents like those in Charlotte or Tulsa or Baton Rouge, etc., the trust between the people and the police is not as strong as it should be.

While an incident of an officer having sex with a prostitute while on duty isn’t the most heinous of crimes, it is an indication to some that the police think they are above the rules.

And even though it is one officer, it reflects poorly on the entire department. To John or Jane Q. Public, it’s not a matter of “one bad apple”, but rather the whole bushel basket is assumed to be spoiled and riddled with worms.

Compounding this is the allegation that other officers were aware of the situation and did not report it. If that proves to be true, it just adds to the public perception that the police have double standards for behavior…one for themselves, one for the rest of us.

Now let’s be clear…our experience has shown that the majority of Trenton’s police officers are hardworking individuals who are proud to wear the badge and truly work to serve all they encounter. In any organization there will be those whose performance falls below the acceptable standard.

When an officer does something that is wrong it is incumbent upon those around the individuals to not turn their heads and look the other way. Rather, they need to report it. It is also up to managers to deal with the problem appropriately, definitively and swiftly.

Too often we have heard past and present TPD officers calling out members of the public or public officials for bad behavior. Why should they remain silent when it comes to one of their own?

There was a somewhat muffled outcry from some members of the department when a police academy cadet was dismissed for cheating and then allowed to re-enter a subsequent academy class. Why would they choose to look the other way when a veteran officer breaks the law?

Allowing the “bad apples” to do as they wish undermines the community-police partnership. It tears at the already shredded fabric of faith the people are asked to place in the police. Weakening that relationship puts both parties at higher risk for more serious confrontations down the road.

If, at the completion of the investigation, the allegations prove to be true, the officer must suffer the appropriate consequences. And, should it be proven that others knew of the situation and did nothing about reporting it, they must be punished as well.

If you see something, say something applies to both sides of the thin blue line.


We have just learned that the officer being investigated for the alleged dalliance with the prostitute has taken his own life. His actions with the woman were absolutely wrong but this is very sad. Perhaps if, instead of turning a blind eye, his colleagues had spoken up this sad turn of events could have been avoided. 

Friends with benefits

This past week it came to light that the New Jersey Attorney General's Office was investigating the  non-profit Friends of Mercer County Parks. The investigation centers on allegations of "official misconduct, corruption of public resources and theft by extortion".

Let's be clear from the very start...at this point NO ONE HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY OF ANYTHING. The story will be told over time as the investigation is concluded and charges brought or dismissed.

That said, there are issues here. Serious issues.

Let's start by looking at what a "Friends of "organization is and why it can be beneficial.

Non-profits that are NOT a part of local or state government have a little more leeway in raising funds and dispersing them to aid in a public institution's mission. Think about Friends of your local public library. They are able to take on fundraising tasks and then put the money back into the operation of the library so things can be done that would otherwise be restricted by budgetary concerns.

Works the same with parks.

It costs a lot to develop, improve and maintain public recreation areas. Use fees can help defray some of the costs but they have to be kept reasonable. Government budgets have to always be mindful of the tax burden on the residents.

A "Friends of" group can legitimately raise additional funds to augment those that come from the county budget. This can be for specific items; maybe the creation of a dog park within a park or a nature trail that identifies the various flora to be found there. Maybe the "Friends" group wants to hold a specific event or series of events; concerts, outdoor film screenings and the like, but there is no money in the budget for those kinds of things. Great!

If a group of committed volunteers want to properly organize, raise money and lend a hand in promoting the use of pubic facilities, we're all for it. 

Problems arise, however, when the non-profits are too closely aligned with/tied to the government entity they are supposed to support.

In the matter before us, we have a "non-profit" group that is made up essentially of employees of the very entity being supported. Despite the claims of public officials about transparency and such, the optics are not good.

The parks commission, while semi-autonomous, is still recognized as a duly chartered public entity and as such is subject to the rules of governing local government entity. From purchasing, to public records and the conduct of public meetings, the commission must follow the same rules as a governing body like the town council or county freeholders.

The "Friends of" group, however, (if properly created and operated) is a private entity that is not subject to the same rules regarding public records or sunshine laws.

When you have a group that is so closely tied the government entity it purports to support, as in the case of the Friends of Mercer County Parks, it just plain looks bad.

Most non-profits are overseen by a board of trustees that volunteer their time. This group was made up of parks employees. This begs the question of whether or not they did "Friends of" work on County time (paid for by the taxpayers). If so, were they not "stealing" from the county coffers?

Wouldn't a better approach have been to solicit trustees and members from a cross-section of the county population. Let them decide how and when to raise funds and when and how to disburse the funds raised? They can work in partnership with but completely independent of the Parks Commission and its staff. There should be no cross over.

No public employee of any agency should hold a voting seat on the board of any non-profit "Friends" group. And they certainly should not have any control over monies raised or disbursed by that group.

Even if, and it is a significant "if", there turns out to be no wrongdoing, the potential for abuse of the non-profit "Friends of" group by the Park Commission members and Executive Director has to be  recognized. The only way to eliminate that abuse is to distance the organization from the parks commission, parks staff, etc. 

And if it means the county cannot continue to produce concerts and events at the parks, that's fine. That isn't the county's job anyway. Government should provide and maintain the facilities, not program them.

If there is truly a need for a "Friends of " the county parks organization, then let it come from the populace and NOT be a captive to the administration.

A "snowmad's" observation

A note to our readers: We've relocated our base of operations east of the capital city into Hamilton Township, hence the title change suggested by one waggish friend several weeks back. (We'll work on an improved header in the weeks to come. Hopefully one that will work for the mobile version of the blog as well).

While some might think this move has placed Trenton squarely in our rear view mirror, we prefer to see it as offering a wider, possibly higher definition perspective. Since we are still property tax paying residents of a neighboring township, we feel we can still add to the discussion by, for and about Trenton and its role in Mercer County. As Father used to say, "As goes Trenton, so goes the townships around it."

****

Last weekend's major snowfall has provided the opportunity to observe and compare how various adjacent municipalities handled the issue of clearing the streets of abnormally high amounts of snow. It also allows for a comparison of the public's response to same.

Social media has been on fire with commentary about the various towns' efforts to deal with the snow. The local papers have picked up on it as well. The Times ran this story comparing Ewing and Trenton's approach to clearing one stretch of road that runs through both. They also ran a story about Trenton residents frustrated with the city's snow removal efforts.

Trenton is a centuries old town that was laid out and developed before the advent and dominance of the automobile. Her horse and buggy era neighborhoods have difficulty accommodating enough parking for the multitudes of personal vehicles under the best of conditions. Dump a couple of feet of snow on the streets and it quickly makes a mess of things.

The City has to clear the snow, obviously starting with the main thoroughfares and working down through the secondary and tertiary roads and onto the alleys and such. A big problem, as any urban homeowner will tell you, is where to put the snow removed from the streets and sidewalks.

Self-centered idiots who clear the walks in front of their homes and/or dig out their parked cars, trucks and SUVs by throwing the snow INTO THE STREET should be cited and punished. They are not helping themselves let alone anyone else by adding to the snow clogged streets. They are just making it harder for the city to plow everyone out.

On the other side of the coin, the city must have a better, more effective plan in place for snow removal. You would think that a Mayor who had previously served as the Public Works Director would be better able to direct and manage the city's clean up efforts. How could it be that no one thought about clearing the City Hall parking lot until it was time for the workers to show up on Monday?

Open communication with the residents about the progress in clearing the streets might help to cut down on some of the complaints. Perhaps the snow removal plan should have some benchmarks that can be used for all to measure the municipality's effectiveness in getting the streets cleared of snow.
(All snow emergency routes completely cleared within 8 hours of the cessation of snowfall; all secondary roads cleared 12 hours later; etc.)

Hamilton runs an application called "Snow Plow Sal" that is supposed to show where plows are operating at any given time as well as tell users when they can expect their street to be plowed. We saw several complaints posted about untouched streets where the app indicated plowing had been done. We didn't investigate the claims (we stayed off of the roads as much as possible during and immediately after the storm so the plows could do their thing.)  It seems as though there were some "errors" in the data provided. Or maybe it was the interpretation of the data. If a plow had made a pass on the street but the snow wasn't removed all the way down to the pavement, was the street considered "done"?

Again, it was a lot of snow. Even with Hamilton's generally larger, less congested streets, it is hard to make that volume of frozen precipitation disappear overnight. Were the public's expectations met? It doesn't seems so. Were those expectations realistic? That's a good question.

And what about the citizens? How well did they cope with this?

Our past experience in Trenton was that only about half of the residents and property owners (including the City itself) adequately cleared their sidewalks as per city ordinance. This made walking tricky at best. As mentioned above, those that did often threw the snow into the streets adding to the burden the plows had to clear away.

In Hamilton there are still some properties where the sidewalks haven't been cleared but not as many proportionately as we used to see in the city. Interesting to us were the homes where the driveways and walks to the front door were snow and ice free within hours of the end of the storm while the sidewalks along the frontage were left untouched. So, it wasn't a matter of someone too old or ill to get the shoveling done.

City or township, the unusual circumstances of the storm did bring out the good in a lot of people. Stories of neighbors helping neighbors dig out cars, get walks cleared, etc. were also posted online and published in the papers. The Trentonian's Jeff Edelstein even did a column on his personal experience with "a helper".

We, too, were the beneficiaries of good neighbors who brought their snow blower over to clear the driveway and knock down the "plow wall" that had been kicked across the driveway curb cut.

Tag! You're IT!

Tonight, Trenton's governing body will, yet again, vote on a contract for IT Consulting services. It has become every bit as hot button an issue this year as it was five years ago under the Mack administration.

There have been a few articles in the local press, some good blogging by Kevin Moriarty, plus some extended commentary on social media. Here are three points that we think must be kept in mind when discussing this situation and deciding the best direction from here.

1) The shortcomings of the City of Trenton's IT system should not be blamed solely (if at all) on the current consultant, Associated Data Processing. ADPC is a vendor hired to support the city's various departments and their IT needs.

Over the years, many have commented on how the city has lagged in effectively using technology to increase the efficacy of its many operations. We've begged for more modern, up to date, services.

Is it the fault of the vendor supporting the existing systems that the city has not drafted a plan to improve the technology used or committed the resources necessary to execute a plan (if there was one)? NO!

If you know your car needs new tires, a transmission rebuild and a tune up but don't direct your mechanic to do the work and authorize the cost of same, is it the mechanic's fault that you can't get up to speed on Rte 1? NO!

If you talk about wanting to lose weight, quit smoking and get in shape with your personal physician but don't follow her suggestions on how to achieve those goals, is it her fault? NO!

Why are so many so quick to blame ADPC for the shortcomings of the Trenton's IT infrastructure?

Just read the documents included with the RFP and you'll see that in the past five years there has been few substantive discussions with either the past or current administrations about upgrading the city's IT system. Contained within in that RFP is an assessment report done, at the City's request, by the (then) current contractor, ADPC. Or we should say, a part of the report is included.

The RFP only contained 36 pages, about half, of the full assessment report. The parts that were omitted were the recommendations, evaluations of ADPCs performance, and lists of aborted or stalled projects, etc. The full report can be found here.



One example...stretching back to the Palmer administration, the city has been "ready" to implement a new computer based system for issuing parking permits and passes. This started when the current Mayor was the Director of Public Works (under whose supervision falls the Division of Transportation) and has been talked about through the Mack years and into the present.The city has yet to commit the resources (funding) to get this system up and running. That is hardly the fault of ADPC.

Another example, the city has failed to update and maintain its GIS system, rendering it somewhat less than useful.

In the full IT Assessment report, various departments rated ADPC's performance. We'll let the document speak for itself here.

2) The RFP process has, by all accounts, been seriously flawed. Flawed to the point where it certainly appears, at least superficially, that it was done in an attempt to manipulate the outcome. Let's start with the simple fact that the city's purchasing agent is not certified (nor does she have to be, by state statute, but she hasn't been able to pass the test). So how credible is the bidding process for anything when it is overseen by someone who cannot meet the requirements for certification set by the state?

With regards to the IT contract, the members of the scoring committee are somewhat suspect. Are they qualified to evaluate IT matters? Are they free of conflicts of interest and totally objective? Was the hired "professional" really able to evaluate a dozen responses from bidders in only the two hours he was paid for?

The mere fact that the administration only published part of the IT Assessment report, leaving out the solid recommendations and lack of commitment to upgrades and improvements is a pretty good indication to us that they were trying to push their shortcomings (and those of their predecessors) off on someone else.



3) It is very doubtful that FCC Consulting is truly the best firm out of all the companies that responded to the RFP. A simple review of the websites of all the companies shows a notable lack of professionalism in FCC's site when compared to the competitors. All of the other firms show at least a small staff and multi-person leadership. FCC's is obviously a one person show at the moment, run out of the principal's rented home. Not very confidence instilling.

What happens if FCC gets the contract? How quickly can he staff up to meet the demands of the work? Can he recruit people with the right skills and experience to serve what will surely be FCC's biggest client?

Does FCC have the financial wherewithal to manage this contract? Doubtful.

Mr. Carothers' business history is rather checkered. There are two judgments from 2008 and 2009 totaling almost $70,000 that are listed on the state judiciary website as still being open. Why hasn't he been able to pay these off?

The business registration for the various LLC's Mr. Carothers has created have all been suspended at one time or another for failure to file annual reports. Filing is a simple process, done online. And if your company goes out of business, you are supposed to file that as well.

Then there is Mr. Carother's personal history of bankruptcy and such. Again, not a lot to build confidence in his ability to successfully perform the important work that the city so badly needs.

So, what to do?

It is possible that there is a better company out there that can help Trenton move ahead in the IT game. There is really no way of knowing until the administration maps out a plan, on its own or with the help of a consultant, as to what it wants to achieve, when it wants to achieve it by and earmarking the funds and human resources to get it done.

For the long term, a plan must be drawn up and a timetable for implementation adopted.

In the short term, the city needs a capable IT consultant. Why not keep ADPC at least through the process of developing a strategy for moving ahead? And if not ADPC, then at least obtain the services of a truly experienced, financially stable vendor to handle the current needs.

This is how our failing city operates

The headline read “Trenton union leader files suit against the city to have $40k returned after contract dispute”.

The story was about Dave Tallone, the head of the city’s largest union and his quest to have $40,000 returned to him by the city of Trenton.

Tallone had been charged with 15 counts of forgery and fraud in 2011 but the charges were dropped in 2013.  At that time, Tallone paid the city of Trenton $40,000 in case the city decided to pursue a civil case against him in the matter. They haven’t and he asked for his money back but hasn’t received it. So, Tallone filed a lawsuit.

Now, at first, this might seem only fitting and right. He put the money up in trust, it wasn’t needed and now he wants it back.

Unfortunately, it just isn’t that simple.  There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Background
If you are not familiar with or have forgotten the background in this matter, here’s a refresher:

From at least 2006 through 2011, Dave Tallone was paid by the City of Trenton to provide food for the Annual Spring Litter march. State law prohibits municipal employees and officers from doing business with their employer so Tallone used other names in an effort to cover his tracks.

Most often, he seemed to use the name of Adele Wright. Ms. Wright is Mr. Tallone’s sister. He also used the name of a Joseph Gresko who is believed to be a relative and/or friend of Tallone’s. The addresses used on the documents pertaining to the contracts were sometimes Tallone’s home address or that of his son (who has since passed away).

It had to have been common knowledge throughout City Hall he was doing this. It was Tallone who showed up to serve the food each day (presumably while still collecting his daily pay from the City of Trenton).

The payments for the food were deposited into bank accounts in the city employee credit union, of which Mr. Tallone was the president. One check was actually endorsed by the payee and then endorsed again with a signature reading “Dave Tallone.”

In the fall of 2011, Mr. Tallone was charged by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s office with 15 counts of forgery and fraud.  The charges were dropped in 2013 because the MCPO could not get Tallone’s sister to travel from her home in Nevada to Trenton to testify.

Tallone got his job back and was given his back pay. The day after the charges were dropped, he gave the city a check for $40,000. Ostensibly this was to be held “in trust” pending the result of any civil action the city might initiate in place of the failed criminal case.

Now Tallone wants his money back. The city hasn’t yet given it to him, so he’s going to court to get it.

Too many questions, too few answers
We have never quite grasped the whole way the case was handled from the outset. Nor have we understood how it went on for several years before being brought to the attention of the authorities.

From the New Jersey State Statutes:

40:69A-163. Interest in contracts or jobs forbidden

No officer or employee elected or appointed in any municipality shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract or job for work or materials, or the profits thereof, to be furnished or performed for the municipality, and no such officer or employee shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract or job for work or materials or the profits thereof, to be furnished or performed, for any person operating any interurban railway, street railway, gas works, water works, electric light or power plant, heating plant, telegraph line, telephone exchange, or other public utility within the territorial limits of such municipality.

L.1950, c.210, p. 509, s. 17-14, eff. June 8, 1950.

There seems to be no disagreement that it was Mr. Tallone who got the contracts. The Mercer County Prosecutor states, in a faxed letter accompanying Tallone’s legal filing that “Mr. Tallone maintains that any service under vendor contracts with the City of Trenton were [sic] provided in full and at the lowest bid.”

That’s pretty clear. Tallone got the jobs. It is also pretty clear that the by using the names of other individuals and effort was being made to circumvent the law.

The whole idea of Tallone having submitted the lowest quote is also questionable.

A purchase order issued for the April 2011 event was in the amount of $12,000 for “unlimited” lunches to be served. It was made out not in Mr. Tallone’s name. It was made out in the name of Joseph Gresko but at the address of Mr. Tallone’s residence.

Documents obtained from the city show two other price quotes for providing the lunches for the April 2011 litter march. One was from Heavenly Ham in Mercer Mall for 3000 lunches at $7.00 each ($21,000). The second was from Fred & Pete’s Catering in Mercerville. Again, 3000 lunches but at $6.00 per ($18,000). Note, the number “3000” not “unlimited.”

Why were two of the quotes for 3000 lunches but Mr. Tallone’s was for an “unlimited” amount?  Was it to make the bid appear even lower?

Who requested the quotes is not clear but we do know this, the entire Litter March was coordinated and paid for out of the Department of Public Works. Mr. Tallone, as an employee of the Sewer Utility, works in a division of the Department of Public Works. Is it possible Tallone was given access to the other quotes so he could come in with a lower price?

If you do the math, Tallone’s price wasn’t the lowest.

The city provided a roster of 37 “teams” representing 1904 people expected to participate in the litter march. The list noted some “no shows”, dropping the count to 1857 plus "staff". If we round the number up to 2000 people in attendance it’s a full third less than the 3000 lunches in the other quotes. If you divide Tallone’s “lowest” bid of $12,000 by a maximum 2000 attendees it comes out to $6.00 per lunch served. That’s the same amount as the well known Fred and Pete’s Deli was going to charge. It is very unlikely, given the list of 1857 attendees “plus staff” that the number of lunches served reached 2000. Let’s assume the 1857 participants were augmented by 43 “staff”.  That brings the total of lunches to 1900. Dividing the $12,000 by 1900 brings the price per lunch to $6.32, higher than the Fred and Pete’s quote.

Interestingly, documents show that Tallone was paid in full for the unlimited lunches on March 29, nearly three full weeks prior to the event. This is another irregularity. Vendors are not usually paid in full prior to delivering the goods or services. We can understand a partial payment to cover the upfront costs of materials, but full payment before delivery should never have occurred. Yet the purchase order was signed off by the then acting director of Public Works, Ralph Burzachiello. There was never a full accounting of the number of lunches served. What if the event had been cancelled due to weather? Would the city have gone back to Tallone and asked for the money back?

A copy of another PO for $8,500 was obtained from the city. This PO was for supplying and serving of “unlimited” continental breakfast for all staff and volunteers the day of the litter march.

The accompanying handwritten quote was broken down into two items. The continental breakfast for an estimated 2500 people at $2.00 per ($5000) and to supply and serve “unlimited” lunch for staff and participants estimated at 700 people extra at $5.00 per head ($3500). This PO was made out to Adele Wright and the address given was that of the condo where Tallone’s son lived.

We know that Ms. Wright was living in Las Vegas at the time, so how come her name is on the PO? Why wasn’t Mr. Gresko’s name used? Was this an attempt to splinter the quotes so that the cost fell below the minimum bid threshold? It should also be noted that this quote, requisition and purchase order were all dated AFTER the April 18 Litter March. So, after the before the fact payment of $12,000, there was an after the fact billing and payment for breakfast and MORE LUNCHES. Sounds like someone was helping himself to healthy seconds from the City's plate! How is it no one in the city finance offices caught that?

Another anomaly in this story is the lack of documentation regarding the vendor providing the food to the city. State law requires any individual or entity to doing business with the local unit to provide a Certificate of Registration. There appear to have been none sought or obtained for Mr. Tallone et al.

When copies of the 1099 forms issued to the vendor(s) for tax reporting purposes were requested, the city stated none had been issued because no Tax ID numbers had been provided. Another violation of law but the city went ahead and repeatedly engaged Mr. Tallone in contracting for the food for the litter march, year after year without reporting his income.

Where were the controls? Who was ignoring or directing to be ignored the most basic rules for purchasing and payment by a municipal government?

The highest levels of management had to know this was going on. How else could so many rules have been overlooked in allowing Tallone to get the contracts?

In 2011, it was acting Public Works Director Ralph Burzachiello who signed the PO for the
lunches.

In 2010, then Public Works Director Eric Jackson signed some of the paperwork submitted under Gresko’s name. 

Why hasn’t the MCPO investigated the city side of this issue?

Tallone acknowledges he did the work, yet the PO’s were issued under the names of others. Isn’t that in and of itself fraud? Why was the MCPO’s case so dependent upon the testimony of Ms. Wright that it couldn’t proceed without her? What was Mr. Gresko’s role in all of this? Was the use of his name in combination with different addresses just another attempt to hide the real fact that Tallone was getting the contracts illegally?

A big if
If Mr. Tallone, Mr. Gresko and Ms. Wright actually had some sort of catering business, it was not properly registered with the state. They didn’t provide proper tax identification numbers to the city. Due to Mr. Tallone’s obvious and acknowledged involvement, they are banned from doing work for the city anyway.

How did any of this escape the notice of the department directors and others who had to sign off on the paperwork?

With all of the above unanswered questions it is somewhat understandable that, on the advice of counsel, Mr. Tallone would pay the city $40,000. It seems pretty obvious that any civil action taken by the city against Tallone would result in him having to make restitution for the money gained from his prohibited contracts.

Or does Mr. Tallone think that the current administration would rather give back that $40,000 in the hopes of putting this story to rest without having to answer any of those pesky questions above?

Dave Tallone got his job back. He has reportedly received his back pay. Seems to us he has pretty much been made whole. Why shouldn’t he make restitution to the city for at least some of the money he received through the illegal contracts?

He should leave it as is and drop his lawsuit requesting the return of the money.

Or maybe it would be better for the matter to proceed, publicly, in the courts so the world can see and hear how the successive administrations in the City of Trenton have broken and ignored public contracting laws and how no one, including the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, has stepped up to take all the parties to task.