http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20110517/NJNEWS/305170013/Ex-Sparta-mayor
May 17, 2011
SPARTA — A former mayor of Sparta who is a captain with the state Human Services Police Department has been charged with submitting fraudulent paperwork and using police databases for personal purposes, according to the Office of the Attorney General.
Brian Brady, 49, was charged with three counts of second-degree official misconduct and one count of second-degree pattern of official misconduct. Brady turned himself in to detectives Tuesday to be processed and was later released without having to post bail.
This police captain allegedly abused his office by falsifying and misusing official records to serve his own purposes,” said Attorney General Paula Dow. “There is no room for dishonest conduct on the part of a sworn law enforcement officer.”
If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in state prison on each official misconduct charge, including five years without possibility of parole, and a consecutive sentence on the pattern of official misconduct charge.
The charges stem from an ongoing investigation being conducted by the Division of Criminal Justice Corruption Bureau and New Jersey Department of Human Services.
Brady, who formerly was a councilman and mayor of Sparta, is the third highest ranking officer in the Human Services Police Department, reporting to the chief and the director. The Human Services Police provide police services at the developmental centers and psychiatric hospitals operated by the Department of Human Services. They also are assigned to protect offices and case workers for the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services.
Brady was elected to the council in 2006 and was elected mayor by his fellow council members in 2008, which was the same year he and two other members of the council were the subjeccts of a failed recall attempt. Brady did not run for a second term.
Brady, who earned an annual salary of $101,000 last year, allegedly submitted false time sheets indicating that he had worked on days when he was away on personal trips. On some of these personal trips, including travel outside of the State of New Jersey, he allegedly used a state vehicle and state-issued E-Z Pass, the attorney general’s office said in a news release.
Brady also is accused of submitting four annual certifications that falsely stated that he had completed required activities at a firing range to re-qualify in use of his service firearm, the release said.
Brady also allegedly had background checks conducted on every member of a minor league baseball team using a police database and provided the results to the team’s manager. It is also alleged that Brady used a police database to run a background check on a vehicle that he wanted to purchase, the release said. The police database is to be used strictly for criminal justice purposes and not to be used for personal gain.
The Department of Human Services immediately suspended Brady pending a disciplinary hearing.
“Police officers are properly held to a higher standard,” said Criminal Justice Director Stephen J. Taylor. “The public needs to be able to rely on the fact that officers will act with integrity at all times when performing their duties.”
Showing posts with label Y) Daily Record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Y) Daily Record. Show all posts
20090705
Can cost a bundle for Morris public records
Daily Record
By ABBOTT KOLOFF • STAFF WRITER • July 5, 2009
An audio compact disc of a Mendham Township committee meeting costs $25, about 50 times the typical CD store price. In Mount Arlington, a similar CD goes for 60 cents.
While most Morris County towns fax or e-mail some documents to members of the public, a significant number won't, even though state officials have indicated they should at least consider those options.
And while the county government recently made a drastic price reduction for copies of paper documents to reflect actual costs, partly because of a recent Mercer County court decision, Morris County's municipalities have not followed its lead.
Those are some findings from a Daily Record survey of Morris County's 39 towns, which was prompted by the county's decision to drop prices after being prodded by an open-public-records activist and the Mercer County court decision in a class-action suit.
Daniel O'Mullan, Morris County's attorney, said he recently agreed to drop the county's fees for paper documents to 5 cents a page, a 15-fold decrease for some documents that took effect two weeks ago. He said the change was made partly as a defensive measure.
"At 5 cents, we become much less liable to lawsuits," he said.
He said the county has paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to fight a pending lawsuit that claims self-service copying machines in the county records hall were priced too high at 25 cents a page. Those prices have since been dropped to 5 cents, O'Mullan said, so it made sense to do the same for OPRA request documents.
The county previously charged 75 cents per page for the first 10 pages of documents, 50 cents for each of the next 10 pages, and 25 cents per page after that — the maximum allowed by the state's Open Public Records Act. Almost every Morris County town charges that rate, with four municipalities having slightly different fees.
But a May 21 ruling by Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, allowing the class action suit to continue in Mercer County, said agencies should charge actual costs and not simply rely on the state maximum. The maximum rate, she said in the ruling, is not supposed to be the default rate.
Jesse Wolosky, an open-records activist from Sussex County, happened to be in Morris County looking up tax records last month and had a conversation with Tom Zaccone, the county's OPRA officer. He provided Zaccone with an Internet link to Feinberg's decision. Zaccone said that convinced him to reduce fees.
Wolosky had a similar conversation in Andover Township about the cost of documents, about five months before the court ruling, with an almost identical result. Vita Thompson, the municipal clerk, lowered paper copy rates from the state maximum to 7 cents per page, which she said reflects actual cost.
"We know it's the right thing to do," said Thompson, president of Sussex County's municipal clerks association. She said a majority of Sussex towns are considering lowering rates for paper copies and CDs or already have done so.
In Morris County, most towns continue to charge the state maximum for paper copies and nine charge at least $10 for a CD or an audio tape, even though such items are available for less than $1 in many stores.
Stephen Mountain, Mendham Township's administrator, said he's not sure how the municipality came up with a $25 CD fee years ago, but added that officials are reviewing charges and expect to make some changes by the end of the summer.
"We have found some fees not reflective of costs," he said, adding that the CD charge "is one of the fees that has been on our radar." However, he said the state maximum charge for paper copies appears to reflect actual cost.
OPRA requires government agencies to charge the actual cost of documents and other items without charging for labor, except in extraordinary circumstances. The state's Government Records Council, known as the GRC, which oversees OPRA, ruled last year that the Madison Board of Education should reduce charges for audio tapes from $30 to $1.50.
The law also requires government agencies to provide documents in "the requested medium." Some open-records advocates, such as Wolosky, say that means agencies should fax and e-mail documents for no charge.
Nine Morris County towns won't send any documents by fax, according to the Daily Record survey, and 16 won't send any by e-mail.
The GRC ruled last year that Fredon Township officials violated OPRA when they failed to acknowledge a request for documents to be sent by e-mail. Fredon officials argued that they didn't have the documents in electronic form and lacked equipment to convert them. But because they sent documents by mail without even addressing the request for an e-mail, the GRC determined the response to be "insufficient."
It did not say officials were required to send documents by e-mail.
BettyLou DeCroce, Roxbury's clerk, said she doesn't know whether the law requires her to send faxes and e-mails, but added that she does send them in those forms, and for no charge. She places some restrictions on the size of faxes.
"How hard is it to push a button?" she said. "I don't have a problem with doing that because it's the public's information."
DeCroce said she was aware of the Feinberg decision regarding document costs and had passed it on to township attorney Anthony M. Bucco. Last week, Bucco said the decision isn't binding outside of Mercer County, and he expects the issue eventually to be resolved either by state appeals courts or the state Legislature. Until then, he said he will advise clients to charge the state maximum for paper copies.
"Everybody supports the idea that documents should be accessible," Bucco said. "But OPRA requests cost taxpayers an awful lot of money. You could have somebody working on those things a couple of hours a day and they can't do other things they were employed to do."
Jonathan Williams, Morristown's attorney, said he had not reviewed the Feinberg ruling, but added that the county's decision to reduce fees might have a broad impact.
"If they are doing that, then every municipality should reexamine the fees they charge to allow the public access to documents at the lowest possible price," he said.
Parsippany clerk Judith Silver said she dropped CD fees from $15 to $5 at the beginning of the year, based on a survey of fees in other towns. Parsippany still charges the state maximum for paper copies — although the first two pages are free. The township will continue to examine the issue, she said, adding that she would prefer the state to set uniform fees.
By ABBOTT KOLOFF • STAFF WRITER • July 5, 2009
An audio compact disc of a Mendham Township committee meeting costs $25, about 50 times the typical CD store price. In Mount Arlington, a similar CD goes for 60 cents.
While most Morris County towns fax or e-mail some documents to members of the public, a significant number won't, even though state officials have indicated they should at least consider those options.
And while the county government recently made a drastic price reduction for copies of paper documents to reflect actual costs, partly because of a recent Mercer County court decision, Morris County's municipalities have not followed its lead.
Those are some findings from a Daily Record survey of Morris County's 39 towns, which was prompted by the county's decision to drop prices after being prodded by an open-public-records activist and the Mercer County court decision in a class-action suit.
Daniel O'Mullan, Morris County's attorney, said he recently agreed to drop the county's fees for paper documents to 5 cents a page, a 15-fold decrease for some documents that took effect two weeks ago. He said the change was made partly as a defensive measure.
"At 5 cents, we become much less liable to lawsuits," he said.
He said the county has paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to fight a pending lawsuit that claims self-service copying machines in the county records hall were priced too high at 25 cents a page. Those prices have since been dropped to 5 cents, O'Mullan said, so it made sense to do the same for OPRA request documents.
The county previously charged 75 cents per page for the first 10 pages of documents, 50 cents for each of the next 10 pages, and 25 cents per page after that — the maximum allowed by the state's Open Public Records Act. Almost every Morris County town charges that rate, with four municipalities having slightly different fees.
But a May 21 ruling by Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, allowing the class action suit to continue in Mercer County, said agencies should charge actual costs and not simply rely on the state maximum. The maximum rate, she said in the ruling, is not supposed to be the default rate.
Jesse Wolosky, an open-records activist from Sussex County, happened to be in Morris County looking up tax records last month and had a conversation with Tom Zaccone, the county's OPRA officer. He provided Zaccone with an Internet link to Feinberg's decision. Zaccone said that convinced him to reduce fees.
Wolosky had a similar conversation in Andover Township about the cost of documents, about five months before the court ruling, with an almost identical result. Vita Thompson, the municipal clerk, lowered paper copy rates from the state maximum to 7 cents per page, which she said reflects actual cost.
"We know it's the right thing to do," said Thompson, president of Sussex County's municipal clerks association. She said a majority of Sussex towns are considering lowering rates for paper copies and CDs or already have done so.
In Morris County, most towns continue to charge the state maximum for paper copies and nine charge at least $10 for a CD or an audio tape, even though such items are available for less than $1 in many stores.
Stephen Mountain, Mendham Township's administrator, said he's not sure how the municipality came up with a $25 CD fee years ago, but added that officials are reviewing charges and expect to make some changes by the end of the summer.
"We have found some fees not reflective of costs," he said, adding that the CD charge "is one of the fees that has been on our radar." However, he said the state maximum charge for paper copies appears to reflect actual cost.
OPRA requires government agencies to charge the actual cost of documents and other items without charging for labor, except in extraordinary circumstances. The state's Government Records Council, known as the GRC, which oversees OPRA, ruled last year that the Madison Board of Education should reduce charges for audio tapes from $30 to $1.50.
The law also requires government agencies to provide documents in "the requested medium." Some open-records advocates, such as Wolosky, say that means agencies should fax and e-mail documents for no charge.
Nine Morris County towns won't send any documents by fax, according to the Daily Record survey, and 16 won't send any by e-mail.
The GRC ruled last year that Fredon Township officials violated OPRA when they failed to acknowledge a request for documents to be sent by e-mail. Fredon officials argued that they didn't have the documents in electronic form and lacked equipment to convert them. But because they sent documents by mail without even addressing the request for an e-mail, the GRC determined the response to be "insufficient."
It did not say officials were required to send documents by e-mail.
BettyLou DeCroce, Roxbury's clerk, said she doesn't know whether the law requires her to send faxes and e-mails, but added that she does send them in those forms, and for no charge. She places some restrictions on the size of faxes.
"How hard is it to push a button?" she said. "I don't have a problem with doing that because it's the public's information."
DeCroce said she was aware of the Feinberg decision regarding document costs and had passed it on to township attorney Anthony M. Bucco. Last week, Bucco said the decision isn't binding outside of Mercer County, and he expects the issue eventually to be resolved either by state appeals courts or the state Legislature. Until then, he said he will advise clients to charge the state maximum for paper copies.
"Everybody supports the idea that documents should be accessible," Bucco said. "But OPRA requests cost taxpayers an awful lot of money. You could have somebody working on those things a couple of hours a day and they can't do other things they were employed to do."
Jonathan Williams, Morristown's attorney, said he had not reviewed the Feinberg ruling, but added that the county's decision to reduce fees might have a broad impact.
"If they are doing that, then every municipality should reexamine the fees they charge to allow the public access to documents at the lowest possible price," he said.
Parsippany clerk Judith Silver said she dropped CD fees from $15 to $5 at the beginning of the year, based on a survey of fees in other towns. Parsippany still charges the state maximum for paper copies — although the first two pages are free. The township will continue to examine the issue, she said, adding that she would prefer the state to set uniform fees.
20080831
Morristown certifies pay-to-play petition
July 2, 2008
Group seeking ordinance to impose stricter limits on campaign contributions
By Minhaj Hassan • Daily Record
MORRISTOWN -- The town clerk has certified a petition filed by residents who want the town to have a strict pay-to-play ordinance.
According to a letter from town clerk Matthew Stechauner, the petition contained 416 valid signatures, which represents 14.18 percent of the 2,934 total votes cast in the 2007 general election.
Pay-to-play is the practice of professional service contractors making campaign contributions to elected officials in municipalities or organizations with whom they have work contracts. Examples include law firms, engineering companies, auditors, accountants and planners, among others.
The petition asks for the town to adopt an ordinance that impose limits on such campaign contributions that would be stricter than the limits imposed by current state law. If the council does not approve the ordinance, a question to approve the ordinance will appear on the November general election ballot, officials said.
If the ordinance is adopted by the governing body or approved by voters, contractors who are awarded professional service contracts could not contribute any more than $300 to each elected official. It also states those contractors could not contribute any more than $500 to local and county committees.
The ordinance is based on a model ordinance devised by Citizens Campaign, a grassroots organization based in Metuchen.
The subject of pay-to-play made headlines statewide earlier this week. On Monday, a state appellate court upheld the constitutionality of pay-to-play restrictions, saying government has a right "to protect the state and its citizens from the 'actuality or appearance' of corruption in the award of state contracts."
The court made that decision after a road contractor had apparently violated pay-to-play restriction laws by contributing funds to the Monmouth County Republican Party. The contractor, Earle Asphalt Co., had challenged the state's pay-to-play laws, claiming it restricts freedom of speech. The challenge was unsuccessful.
Many of the same residents who worked on Morristown's pay-to-play petition -- Linda Carrington, Thomas Hollo, town historian Marion Harris, Eugene Witt and Stefan Armington -- have said they are ready to re-canvass the neighborhood again to collect signatures to challenge a possible pay hike for Mayor Donald Cresitello.
The town council is expected to make a decision July 15 on whether to approve a pay hike of as much as $6,000 for Cresitello, who has said he will not seek re-election in 2009. The local governing body will also determine at that meeting whether to approve the pay-to-play reforms, or let the voters decide.
Armington, in a telephone interview, said "I expected it to be certified, given the number of signatures. It was good that it was certified." He said he doesn't know how the council members will vote on July 15. Either way, a vote will take place, either from the local government side or by the voting public.
Group seeking ordinance to impose stricter limits on campaign contributions
By Minhaj Hassan • Daily Record
MORRISTOWN -- The town clerk has certified a petition filed by residents who want the town to have a strict pay-to-play ordinance.
According to a letter from town clerk Matthew Stechauner, the petition contained 416 valid signatures, which represents 14.18 percent of the 2,934 total votes cast in the 2007 general election.
Pay-to-play is the practice of professional service contractors making campaign contributions to elected officials in municipalities or organizations with whom they have work contracts. Examples include law firms, engineering companies, auditors, accountants and planners, among others.
The petition asks for the town to adopt an ordinance that impose limits on such campaign contributions that would be stricter than the limits imposed by current state law. If the council does not approve the ordinance, a question to approve the ordinance will appear on the November general election ballot, officials said.
If the ordinance is adopted by the governing body or approved by voters, contractors who are awarded professional service contracts could not contribute any more than $300 to each elected official. It also states those contractors could not contribute any more than $500 to local and county committees.
The ordinance is based on a model ordinance devised by Citizens Campaign, a grassroots organization based in Metuchen.
The subject of pay-to-play made headlines statewide earlier this week. On Monday, a state appellate court upheld the constitutionality of pay-to-play restrictions, saying government has a right "to protect the state and its citizens from the 'actuality or appearance' of corruption in the award of state contracts."
The court made that decision after a road contractor had apparently violated pay-to-play restriction laws by contributing funds to the Monmouth County Republican Party. The contractor, Earle Asphalt Co., had challenged the state's pay-to-play laws, claiming it restricts freedom of speech. The challenge was unsuccessful.
Many of the same residents who worked on Morristown's pay-to-play petition -- Linda Carrington, Thomas Hollo, town historian Marion Harris, Eugene Witt and Stefan Armington -- have said they are ready to re-canvass the neighborhood again to collect signatures to challenge a possible pay hike for Mayor Donald Cresitello.
The town council is expected to make a decision July 15 on whether to approve a pay hike of as much as $6,000 for Cresitello, who has said he will not seek re-election in 2009. The local governing body will also determine at that meeting whether to approve the pay-to-play reforms, or let the voters decide.
Armington, in a telephone interview, said "I expected it to be certified, given the number of signatures. It was good that it was certified." He said he doesn't know how the council members will vote on July 15. Either way, a vote will take place, either from the local government side or by the voting public.
20080323
Court backs Victory Gardens recall election ruling
Opinion supports earlier decision that no evidence of fraud existed in recall
BY MICHAEL SCHOLL
DAILY RECORD
Thursday, March 20, 2008
VICTORY GARDENS -- A state appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that affirmed the results of the 2006 recall election that replaced then-mayor Nanette Courtine with current mayor Betty Simmons.
A three judge panel of the Appellate Division of state Superior Court accepted the February 2007 decision rendered by Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis, who ruled there was no evidence of fraud in the recall election despite the aggressive efforts of the Simmons campaign to encourage people to vote for the recall by absentee ballot.
In an eight-page unsigned opinion released Tuesday, the Appellate Division panel wrote that it found nothing in the case record that would justify overriding Bozonelis' conclusion that the recall election was fair.
In the election, which was held Nov. 7, 2006, Victory Gardens residents voted 133 to 71 to recall Courtine.
In a separate question on who should replace Courtine if she was recalled, Simmons, a Republican, received 121 votes; Courtine, an independent, received 59 votes; and David Holeman, a Democrat, received 17 votes.
During the trial before Bozonelis, Courtine presented depositions from 14 voters who challenged the validity of their votes on the grounds that they were subjected to undue pressure to vote in favor of the recall. Bozonelis rejected the claims made in the depositions and also failed to find that the large number of absentee ballots cast in the election was evidence of fraud.
Simmons received 57 votes by absentee ballot in the recall election, while Courtine got 6 absentee votes and Holeman 5.
In its ruling, the appellate panel noted that Courtine only challenged the validity of 14 votes, a number well short of the 62-vote margin by which she lost the recall election, and therefore well short of the number needed to overturn the results of the election.
The panel also rejected Courtine's argument that there was fraud evidenced by the disproportionate number of absentee ballots cast in the recall election as compared to past elections. In doing so the judges referred to a 2005 change in the law that liberalized absentee voting requirements by allowing any qualified and registered voter who wants to vote by absentee ballot to do so.
Courtine's attorney, Jeffrey M. Advokat, expressed disappointment with the appellate panel's ruling.
"We thought that there were enough question marks about how things were done in the election," Advokat said. Wednesday.
"Obviously the courts didn't see it our way," he added.
Advokat said he planned to meet with Courtine to see whether they should appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.
Courtine declined comment other than to say she was "reviewing her options." She referred all other questions to Advokat.
Simmons could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
"We were obviously pleased with the decision of the court," said Anthony Bucco, an attorney who represents Simmons.
The appellate panel also affirmed Bozonelis' decision not to order Courtine to reimburse Simmons for the $1,670 in deposition costs that Simmons had incurred in the case. The panel accepted the lower court's decision that the parties agreed to the deposition procedure and that the terms of that procedure should not be overturned by the courts.
Simmons' current term as the mayor of the tiny borough of 1,546 people expires at the end of this year.
BY MICHAEL SCHOLL
DAILY RECORD
Thursday, March 20, 2008
VICTORY GARDENS -- A state appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that affirmed the results of the 2006 recall election that replaced then-mayor Nanette Courtine with current mayor Betty Simmons.
A three judge panel of the Appellate Division of state Superior Court accepted the February 2007 decision rendered by Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis, who ruled there was no evidence of fraud in the recall election despite the aggressive efforts of the Simmons campaign to encourage people to vote for the recall by absentee ballot.
In an eight-page unsigned opinion released Tuesday, the Appellate Division panel wrote that it found nothing in the case record that would justify overriding Bozonelis' conclusion that the recall election was fair.
In the election, which was held Nov. 7, 2006, Victory Gardens residents voted 133 to 71 to recall Courtine.
In a separate question on who should replace Courtine if she was recalled, Simmons, a Republican, received 121 votes; Courtine, an independent, received 59 votes; and David Holeman, a Democrat, received 17 votes.
During the trial before Bozonelis, Courtine presented depositions from 14 voters who challenged the validity of their votes on the grounds that they were subjected to undue pressure to vote in favor of the recall. Bozonelis rejected the claims made in the depositions and also failed to find that the large number of absentee ballots cast in the election was evidence of fraud.
Simmons received 57 votes by absentee ballot in the recall election, while Courtine got 6 absentee votes and Holeman 5.
In its ruling, the appellate panel noted that Courtine only challenged the validity of 14 votes, a number well short of the 62-vote margin by which she lost the recall election, and therefore well short of the number needed to overturn the results of the election.
The panel also rejected Courtine's argument that there was fraud evidenced by the disproportionate number of absentee ballots cast in the recall election as compared to past elections. In doing so the judges referred to a 2005 change in the law that liberalized absentee voting requirements by allowing any qualified and registered voter who wants to vote by absentee ballot to do so.
Courtine's attorney, Jeffrey M. Advokat, expressed disappointment with the appellate panel's ruling.
"We thought that there were enough question marks about how things were done in the election," Advokat said. Wednesday.
"Obviously the courts didn't see it our way," he added.
Advokat said he planned to meet with Courtine to see whether they should appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.
Courtine declined comment other than to say she was "reviewing her options." She referred all other questions to Advokat.
Simmons could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
"We were obviously pleased with the decision of the court," said Anthony Bucco, an attorney who represents Simmons.
The appellate panel also affirmed Bozonelis' decision not to order Courtine to reimburse Simmons for the $1,670 in deposition costs that Simmons had incurred in the case. The panel accepted the lower court's decision that the parties agreed to the deposition procedure and that the terms of that procedure should not be overturned by the courts.
Simmons' current term as the mayor of the tiny borough of 1,546 people expires at the end of this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)