LFBWright

New Jersey Libertarian Party
Open Government Advocacy Project
John Paff, Chairman
P.O. Box 5424
Somerset, NJ 08875-5424
Phone: 732-873-1251 - Fax: 908-325-0129
Email: lpsmc@pobox.com
July 24, 2012
Thomas H. Neff, Chair
Local Finance Board
101 S Broad St – PO Box 803
Trenton, NJ 08625-0803
(via e-mail to Tom.Neff@dca.state.nj.us)
Dear Mr. Neff:
We intend this letter to be a complaint under the New Jersey Local Government
Ethics Law. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 5:35-1.1(b), following are the required elements of
the complaint:
1.
State the points of the Local Government Ethics Law alleged to be violated.
N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5 (a), (c), (d) and (e).
2.
State the name(s) and title(s) of the parties involved in the action and
against whom the complaint is filed.
o Complainant John Paff and the New Jersey Libertarian Party
o Wrightstown Mayor and Joint Land Use Board Member Thomas E. Harper
o Wrightstown Joint Land Use Board Member Mary Karen Harper
3.
Set forth in detail the pertinent facts surrounding the alleged violative
action.
1.
At all times relevant to this complaint, Mayor Harper and his wife Mary
Karen Harper owned their residence at 54 West Main Street, Wrightstown, New
Jersey. (See Financial Disclosure Statement, Exhibit pages 1 – 2.)
2.
During 2009, both Mayor Harper and Mrs. Harper were members of the
Wrightstown Borough Joint Land Use Board (JLUB) and both were present at the
JLUB’s April 14, 2009 public meeting. (See minutes of the JLUB’s April 14, 2009
meeting, Exhibit pages 3 – 14.)
3.
At its April 14, 2009 meeting, the JLUB held a public hearing on a site-plan
review application regarding 56 West Main Street, Wrightstown, New Jersey, which
is a property next door to the Harpers’ residence. (Ibid.)
4.
Immediately prior to the public hearing, however, both “Mayor and Mrs.
Harper recused themselves from the dais.” (Exhibit page 3.)
5.
During the hearing, two of the land use applicants, Vlad Grushin and Alex
Lubov, testified regarding the property under consideration—56 West Main Street,
Wrightstown. Their testimony was that the property, if approved, was going to be
used by their company, Statewide Construction Management Company. The
following testimony is taken from Exhibit page 4:
Mr. Timberman: Is the office just for your
personal use or are you going to rent it out?
Mr. Lubov: No, we also own the construction
company and we are local. We are just looking for
something to have storage and office in there.
Mr. Timberman: For your own use?
Mr. Lubov: Yes, it will be our company in there.
Mr. Frank: That is Statewide Construction?
Mr. Lubov: Yes.
Mr. Frank: And what kind of construction does that
company do?
Mr. Lubov: Residential and commercial. It's a
small company. Not industrial or anything.
Mr. Grushin: The actual name is Statewide
Construction Management so we want to be paper
contractor rather than construction company. That
pretty much says all. We added the third word.
6.
Exhibit pages 15 and 16 are the 2009 Financial Disclosure Form filed by Land
Use Board members Mary Karen Harper, showing that she received in excess of
$2,000 from “Puente Const. Inc.”
7.
Exhibit page 17 is 2010 print of Statewide Construction Management’s website
showing that “Puente Construction Enterprises, Inc.” is one of Statewide’s “partners
and clients.” On information and belief, the “Puente Const. Inc,” which paid Mrs.
Harper over $2,000, is the same company as “Puente Construction Enterprises, Inc.”
which is associated with Statewide, the land use applicant.
8.
During the hearing, both Mayor Harper and Mrs. Harper were sworn in and
testified. (Exhibit pages 12 and 13.) Mrs. Harper testified that “I work with these
guys (i.e. Statewide)” and then went on to give glowing testimony about the quality of
the applicant’s work. What she didn’t reveal to the Board was that she had a direct
2
business relationship with—and received more than $2,000 from—one of Statewide’s
“partners and clients.”
9.
After the public hearing, the Board approved the application with both Mayor
Harper and Mrs. Harper abstaining. (Exhibit page 13.)
10.
After the conclusion of the matter, both “Mayor Harper and Mrs. Harper
joined the dais again.” (Exhibit page 14.)
We assert that it was impermissible for two members of a land use board, a married
couple which derived income from one of the land use applicant's "partner and client,” to
recuse themselves from dais and then testify in support of the applicant's application.
4.
Indicate whether the complaint concerns the complainant in any way and
what, if any, relationship the complainant has to the subject of the
complaint.
Complainant has no interest in or relationship to this complaint greater than any
other citizen or organization who wishes for all government officers and employees to
comply fully with the Local Government Ethics Law.
5.
Indicate any other action previously taken in an attempt to resolve the
issue and indicate whether the issue is the subject of pending litigation
elsewhere.
We filed a similar complaint, LFB-11-147, but that complaint was filed prior to us
knowing the business relationship between the applicants and the Harper family as set
forth in ¶¶ 6 - 8 of § 3 above.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I ask that you please acknowledge your
receipt of this complaint within 30 days.
Sincerely,
John Paff
3
Exhibit Page 1
Exhibit Page 2
Exhibit Page 3
Exhibit Page 4
Exhibit Page 5
Exhibit Page 6
Exhibit Page 7
Exhibit Page 8
Exhibit Page 9
Exhibit Page 10
Exhibit Page 11
Exhibit Page 12
Exhibit Page 13
Exhibit Page 14
Exhibit Page 15
Exhibit Page 16
Exhibit Page 17