Burlington County Freeholders 
|
|
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 02:10:28 PM EDT
|
We wrote about the heat the new Burlington County Freeholder administrator Paul Drayton has been taking since his selection by the Republican Freeholder board the other day. Now the board is coming under greater scrutiny because of the choice, a close friend of Party boss Glenn Paulsen. Their unwillingness to be forthcoming and inability to admit they made a mistake has led the Courier to offer this take on what they are doing:The Republican majority on the freeholder board appears to be ignoring what's in the public interest in favor of what's in their partisan interest. The Courier wants the Freeholder board to cut their losses and let Drayton go, but the Republican Freeholders haven't been willing to take that step yet. The editorial called the selection of Drayton a "highly partisan pick, and a bad one given some of what we know." Not only is the selection questionable, but the process by which he came about deserves further scrutiny. The Republican Freeholders have been unwilling to make public the names of the people who interviewed for the position and the finalists only met with the Freeholder Director and Deputy Director. That's far from the transparency they promised the voters.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:50:00 AM EST
|
|
The Burlington County Republican Freeholder Board has chosen a new administrator to manage the county's finances and workforce, but apparently he can't manage his own finances, is behind on his child support and did not inform them about prior lawsuits.
In the latest example of don't lie to the media, he initially said everything was up to date on his child support when asked, but then admitted he still owed money and was finding ways to catch up. That led the paper to his ex-wife who had this harsh observation about the man and the position: "I think it's interesting that he can get a job overseeing 2,000 employees and a budget of more than $200 million when he can't even handle paying child support on time," Johnson said Thursday. "He's just a liar. I hate to say that." Divorces can be ugly, but that's rough. The Republican Freeholder board denied a Courier Post request to get the other applicants that were in the running for the position, so the Post kept digging and found that Drayton was not forthcoming with the Freeholders about other issues he has faced including legal actions against two former employers: A judge in Burlington County last year issued a judgment of almost $200,000 against Paul Drayton Jr. and two partners for failing to repay a bank loan for their firm, Capital Consulting LLC of Mount Laurel.
And in 2005, Drayton sued a former employer in federal court, claiming racial and age bias were behind his termination a year earlier. Drayton last week had said he left his job rather than accept a transfer to Texas. The bias lawsuit was dismissed in July 2006, according to court records. This isn't the first time that Drayton has found himself making headlines in the papers. As head of the DRPA, he had an ugly split:He left in 2003 -- with a $198,000 cash severance package labeled as a settlement -- after a power struggle with Jeffrey Nash, a Camden County freeholder who was then the authority's vice chairman.
At the time, Nash called Drayton's settlement "the most blatant circumvention of DRPA policy I've ever heard of." The two Democrats on the board were critical of the selection process all along, but those criticisms have taken on a new life in light of the revelations since the hiring. Only two of the Republican freeholders conducted the final seven interviews before choosing. The Republicans have continued to defend their selection as additional news comes out daily. Even if they still believe he's the most qualified for the job, which has to be questionable at this point, what does it say about their interview process that the newspaper in four days has been able to get more than the board did throughout their "extensive search and interview process?"
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:45:00 AM EDT
|
Maybe the Republican Freeholders need to find some new accountants in Burlington County:And after Republican Freeholder James Wujcik disclosed additional county revenue of $621,000, Democratic Freeholder Chris Brown became incensed that other board members were unaware of the development.
"This information is absolutely critical. When you put a budget together, we need the damn numbers," Brown said. "We should not be handed a document (tonight) saying there is another $621,000. This is a joke."
The freeholders unanimously passed Brown's motion to table action on the Donnelly budget until the freeholders can review new budget information.
Wujcik said he learned earlier Wednesday that the county would have to pay $621,000 less in projected payments for leased bonds sold through the county bridge commission. Wujcik, who said he did not withhold that information from the board, later called Brown "arrogant" and "pompous." This would be the Burlington County Bridge Commission. The same bridge commission by which $2.7 million of no bid, now work deals were done and someone was indicted because as they put it, "I got sucked into a corrupt group of people." Now the taxpayers are supposed to believe what, that the bridge commission lost a tooth and found that the tooth fairy left an extra $621 grand under their pillow? And then they're so excited, that they share it with the Freeholders to magically balance the budget.
As to the disclosure timeline, Donnelly apparently briefed the Republican Freeholders earlier in the day, but left the two Democrats on the board in the dark on the matter. The Democrats challenging for the Freeholder seats in November jumped at the opening: "How do you "find" more than $600,000 this late in the process, when a budget is up for public hearing?" asked Bernard. "That's either incompetence or dishonesty, but it's definitely fiscal malpractice. Burlington County taxpayers deserve accountability from their public officials."
"The political appointees who are responsible for this stunt need to be punished or terminated," said Kersey. "This is precisely why their patronage salaries need to be cut. Actions such as this "miraculous discovery" of revenue at the last minute are more proof they are over-paid and under-qualified." Maybe the Governor can call the bridge commission for help with the state shortfall too.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
|
|
Tomorrow at noon, Burlington County will hold their reorganization for county offices at a public building, the Olde Courthouse in Mount Holly, during an open public meeting. I decided that I wanted to go, but was told to make sure I had a ticket. As a Democrat wandering in the Republican desert of Burlington County for many years of my life, I and many others were excited to see this historic change. The last time we had a Democrat sworn in at the county level in Burlington was 1980. They left the board in 1983. It's been a long time coming.
Never before had the freeholder board tried to limit access to the reorganization. Then again, maybe they didn't think people would actually come when the same Republicans were elected over and over. Times have changed. Two Democratic Freeholders will be sworn in along with the new Democratic Clerk. Apparently the GOP was afraid of the crowds wanting to witness.
The GOP freeholders came up with a plan to limit attendance to "ticket holders" by funneling tickets through officeholders first. If any were left over after that, the public could be lucky enough to see their newly elected officials sworn in. It was a clear effort to limit the crowd to a more friendly audience.
After pressure from many Democrats, the GOP has reversed course and agreed to open up the meeting and swearing in to anyone who wants to attend. Attendance will still be first come, first serve until the courthouse reaches capacity. Here's what Burlington County Democratic Party Chairman Rick Perr had to say about the situation: Burlington County Democrats ran on a platform that included increasing accessibility to county government. This is just the first step in showing that having Democrats in county government actually makes a difference.
I'm glad the GOP freeholders scrapped the county Ticketmaster policy. What were they afraid of, people coming to see government in action?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 10:58:00 PM EDT
|
|
Welcome to how not to run a government, brought to you by the Burlington County Republican Party. A few weeks ago, I posted about a scheme to create a slush fund under the control of the GOP Freeholder board with the help of their appointees at the bridge commission. At the time, the Burlington County Times called them on it and Freeholder Candidate Tom Bader kept the heat on. Today, the Burlington County Times recaps some of the highlights of the GOP run county government's fleecing of the taxpayers and calls them on their crap again with this editorial. A scheme to expand the powers of the Burlington County Bridge Commission has collapsed, which is the fate it should have met from Day One......The scandal-plagued commission needs to get its own house in order before it starts funneling money through a loan program that uses the county's good credit rating to keep interest rates reasonable.
This week, sentencing was delayed a third time for a commission lobbyist and spokesman who admitted in federal court that he deliberately over billed the commission for several years beginning in 1997.
By most accounts, the activities of Robert Stears resulted in up to $1 million in losses.
The state Attorney General's Office has also subpoenaed the commission to determine what work - if any - state Sen. Martha Bark, R-8th of Medford, performed as a consultant to the Palmyra Cove Nature Park project, this to the tune of $233,101.
The park is under the bridge commission's jurisdiction.
Equally troubling, the Tacony-Palmyra and Burlington-Bristol bridges came up short this summer when federal inspectors found them "structurally deficient" in the aftermath of the collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis.
With its less-than-stellar reputation, the commission has a way to go to regain public trust... ...Still, it's hard not to see this loan initiative as an opportunity for more pockets to be lined, more money to be doled out and more power to be wielded by commissioners who were never elected by the people they serve. This has all occurred under the watchful eyes of the GOP controlling nearly all levels of county government for years. A GOP freeholder board, who made appointments to the bridge commission while GOP boss Glenn Paulsen pulled the strings and awarded contracts through the family business. Stears, who is awaiting sentencing has been thrown overboard by his former employer, the Strategy Group, which is the firm of none other than GOP State Chair Tom Wilson. If you're confused, that's the point. They're hoping you won't notice that they're robbing you blind.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM EDT
|
They have some nerve.A $44,300 study of the Burlington County Bridge Commission's management and contract-awarding practices recommends a series of reforms, all of which have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented, bridge commission officials said. So they wasted another 45K for a study to recommend reforms that they are already implementing or have been done. What will change then? Let's remind everyone why this dog and pony show was needed in the first place...County freeholders requested the study after a public relations consultant admitted last year that he routinely overbilled the bridge commission.
The consultant, Robert Stears of Lawrenceville, admitted during a December federal court hearing that between 1997 and 2003, he routinely inflated the number of hours he and members of his firm worked while under contract with the bridge commission. Stears pleaded guilty to income tax evasion and mail fraud and the incident led to the resignation of Bridge Commission Executive Director George Nyikita. Ok, so we need a commission costing money, to study how money was taken, but all the changes recommended by said study were already being implemented anyway. Makes sense right? And what have these $44,300 worth of changes actually changed? Don't worry, the Bridge Commission is already breaking their arm patting themselves on the back to take credit for the "successes." Follow me below the fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 598 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM EDT
|
Yesterday we told you about the idea that the Burlington County Bridge Commission apparently suggested to the freeholders"(who by the way appoint them to their position) that they could bond $20 million dollars to create a county lease bank and assist towns with "small purchases". We questioned whether this was a shell game that had the potential to turn into a slush fund needing only need freeholder approval for such purchases and the Burlington County Times exposes just that setup...The money for the loans would come from a yet-to-be-selected bank and the bridge commission wouldn't be lending any toll money. The bridge commission needs the freeholders to authorize the use of the county guarantee.
The guarantee means the taxpayers of the county would be backing the loans arranged by the bridge commission, something only the freeholders can approve. Are you dizzy from going in circles yet? Despite the fact that the Freeholder board has complete GOP Control, the measure only passed by a 3-2 margin and they needed one of the freeholders to cast the deciding vote by conference call...However, Wujcik and Haines said they had reservations. Haines said he's not sure the 1 or 2 percent savings in interest lives up to the assertion by the bridge commission that the initiative is a vehicle for tax relief.
"I don't understand the rush to do this," he said. Now that's a good question, whats the rush?The loan program, which the bridge commission is calling Burlington Bank, could be operating as early as October under the current schedule. So going by the current schedule, the Freeholders will have a month to start doling out $20 million dollars under the guise of protecting the taxpayers before many of them have their name on the ballot for Election Day. That's a pretty good setup for them, wouldn't you say? Like i said yesterday, if they go forward with this plan there had better be some strict guidelines on what qualifies and constant oversight on this one.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
