State Ethics Commission To Review Gov. Murphy’s Pinelands Picks
Request to Force Commissioners To Publicly Disclose Corporate Conflicts And Recuse
Ethics Commission Immediately Imposes A Cloak Of Secrecy
There are ways to protect legitimate privacy rights without invoking total secrecy
After failing to convince Pinelands Commission Ethics Officer Stacey Roth to require public disclosure of corporate clients and require recusal of Gov. Murphy’s confirmed Pinelands Commisisoners Matos and McCurry, I appealed to the State Ethics Commission to intervene and review the ethics compliance issues.
On Friday, the Ethics Commission responded to my request.
In a cryptic email, they confirmed that the matter was under review, but immediately imposed confidentiality over the review process.
Dear Mr. Wolfe –
The State Ethics Commission is in receipt of your allegations. We are unable to provide you with any update due to our confidentiality rules.
Thank you.
Mary Ann Keys, Esq.
Legal Specialist
New Jersey State Ethics Commission
609-292-1892
So we find ourselves in a bizarre Kafkaesque situation where a Commission, created to enforce State ethics laws designed to promote public confidence and trust in government, is acting directly contradictory to that mission by using secrecy to undermine public trust and confidence in government!
The Ethics Commission is acting like some clandestine CIA like outfit that can not confirm or deny their involvement. Their review process is the epitome of a black box. No transparency whatsoever.
[Update 4/4/22: Almost as if to parody my reference to the CIA, I received this email from the State Ethics Commission today:
Hello Mr. Wolfe,
This will confirm the receipt of your most recent email. As previously noted, the SEC is in receipt of the information you provided. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with any updates regarding the concerns you raised. This email nor any of my prior emails neither confirms or denies the existence of an investigation.
Mary Ann Keys, Esq.
Legal Specialist
New Jersey State Ethics Commission
She left out the part about “this email will self destruct in 10 seconds”!!! ~~~ end update]
I’ve been through this absurd situation with the Ethics Commission before, when back in 2005, I filed an ethics complaint on DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell for providing confidential information to Joe Riggs, CEO of Hovnanian (the huge housing developer) to give him a heads up on upcoming DEP Category One waters regulatory proposals, see:
At that time, I publicly spoke before the Commission to argue this same exact issue regarding the absurdity and contradiction inherent in its confidentiality rules.
At that time, a Commission member agreed with me and I had a very interesting colloquy with Commissioner (I think it was former Gov. Brendan Byrne who agreed with me).
So, of course I objected to this again and reminded the Commission staff of this history – perhaps the NJ media can ask similar questions and at least force the Ethics Commission to explain the rationale for and defend this total secrecy policy.
It seems that there are many ways to protect the legitimate privacy rights of people subject to ethics reviews without invoking total secrecy:
From: Bill WOLFE <bill_wolfe@comcast.net>
To: “Keys, Mary Ann [ETHICS]” <Maryann.Keys@ethics.nj.gov>
Date: 01/28/2022 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Pinelands Commissioners – ethics review
Ms. Keys:
Thank you for a timely reply.
FYI, back in 2005, I was interviewed by Ethics Commission investigators regard a complaint I filed agains DEP Commissioner Campbell. Subsequently, I appeared before the Commission during its public meeting and sought certain public disclosures.
At that meeting, Counsel for the Commission made a similar confidentiality claim. Of course, I strenuously objected, which triggered a very interesting colloquy with a Commissioner (I think it was former Gov. Byrne),who supported my position in support of public disclosure.
Just thought I’d advise you of that history and request that you provide the current legal basis for your assertion of confidentiality.
Bill Wolfe
[Update: Ms. Keys again promptly replied this morning and cited Commission regulations: N.J.A.C. 19:61-3.5(b) 1; N.J.A.C. 19:61-3.1(a)3; and/or N.J.A.C. 19:61-3.1(c)3..]
Here is the request for an ethics review that I submitted to the Commission:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <bill_wolfe@comcast.net>
To: “ethics@ethics.nj.gov” <ethics@ethics.nj.gov>
Cc: “ethics@pinelands.nj.gov” <ethics@pinelands.nj.gov>, “carleton@pinelandsalliance.org” <carleton@pinelandsalliance.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>
Date: 01/27/2022 6:26 PM
Subject: Pinelands Commissioners – ethics review
Dear State Ethics Commission:
I am writing regarding two recently confirmed and seated Commissioners at the NJ Pinelands Commission, Ms. Matos and Mr. McCurry.
As you know, the State Uniform Ethics Code has a very broad standard regarding potential conflicts of interests:
“interest might reasonably be expected to impair a State official’s objectivity and independence of judgment in the exercise of his/her official duties or might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his or her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his/her trust as a State official.”
Issues involving actual, potential, or the appearance of conflicts of interest by Gov. Murphy’s corporate nominees to the Pinelands Commission, Ms. Matos and Mr. McCurry, were raised by many people immediately after their nominations were announced in December.
On December 3, 2021, Carleton Montgomery, Director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance wrote
“In a truly shocking move, Governor Murphy today nominated three corporate lobbyists for the Pinelands Commission. They would replace three seasoned environmental leaders with years of service for the Pinelands.
All three of the new nominees appear to have fundamental conflicts of interest due to their employment as lobbyists for industry. Only one of the three appears to have any prior interest at all in environmental protection.”
A scathing December 9, 2021 Star Ledger editorial also raised concerns regarding the corporate backgrounds and conflicts of interest of these nominees.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/12/murphy-targets-enviros-on-the-pinelands-commission-editorial.html
The Star Ledger editorial board excoriated Gov.Murphy’s nominations of these individuals as “a craven power play”, a “brazen” attempt to “gut the Commission during lame duck”, and a “scheme” that was similar to the “bullying” by Gov. Christie.
Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early January by David Pringle of Clean Water Action specifically raised concerns about conflicts of interest of the nominees.
Given this media coverage, Senate testimony, and public debate, there is already significant public concerns and a reasonable appearance of ethical conflicts.
This situation warrants intervention by your Office.
I am requesting that the State Ethics Commission review this matter for compliance with the spirit, intent, and letter of NJ’s ethics and conflicts of interest laws, i.e. the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq., standards and codes adopted pursuant thereto, including Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order #2, for, among other things, the following reasons:
1. Ms. Matos is currently – and previously was employed – by corporate firm(s) that represents corporate clients, organizations, and individuals that may have, or appear to have, various interests in the NJ Pinelands or appear before the Pinelands Commission.
Additionally, she has served in various capacities for political candidates and Governor Murphy, see bio:
https://www.kivvit.com/team-kivvit/laura-matos
Accordingly, there may be reasonable grounds for the public to question her
“objectivity and independence of judgment in the exercise of his/her official duties” or that there “might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his or her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his/her trust as a State official.”
2. Mr. McCurry is currently employed by Orsted, a corporation that is currently involved with Gov. Murphy’s off shore wind development program and has huge economic interests of a statewide nature, particularly in potential issues that may come before the Pinelands Commission.
Here is my McCurry’s bio, per Orsted:
I am concerned with this job function for Orsted:
“McCurry will help develop and implement strategies to ensure the successful advancement of existing projects, Ocean Wind 1 and 2, inform efforts to secure additional business and shape Ørsted’s position and standing in the state.”
According to his bio, Mr. McCurry also has prior employment and relationships with Gov. Murphy’s office and a Trenton corporate lobbying or public relations firm where he may have had relationships with corporations or individuals that may have interests in the Pinelands or appear before the Pinelands Commission.
Accordingly, there may be reasonable grounds for the public to question his
“objectivity and independence of judgment in the exercise of his/her official duties” or that there “might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his or her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his/her trust as a State official.”
3. I previously attempted to work with the Pinelands Commission’s ethics officer, Ms. Stacey Roth. I wrote her on Jan. 14 and made the following requests, which she subsequently denied due to a timing issue. I wrote to request that Ms. Roth:
“1) Consult with your ethics liaison in the Attorney General’s Office regarding the procedure, scope, and content of the ethics review for these Commissioners and secure a formal written opinion providing legal guidance;
2) Consult with your ethics liaison at the State Ethics Commission regarding the procedure, scope, and content of the ethics review for these Commissioners and secure a formal written opinion providing ethics guidance;
3) require that both Commissioners file ethics disclosure and recusal request documents, prior to the AG and Ethics Commission consultations suggested above and incorporate those documents in the AG and Ethics Commission reviews.”
Ms. Roth rejected those requests on the following basis (emphasis mine). Ms. Roth wrote in reply:
“The Pinelands Protection Act, at N.J.S.A.13:18A-5(a)1, authorizes the Governor to appoint seven members to the Commission with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate approved Ms. Matos’ and Mr. McCurry’s appointments to the Pinelands Commission on January 10, 2022. The Act does not provide a mechanism for the Commission itself or the Commission staff to appoint, vet or challenge Commissioner appointments.
With regard to potential conflicts of interest and participation in official Commission matters, please be advised that all Pinelands Commissioners, as Special State Officers, are subject to the requirements of the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq., the regulations of the State Ethics Commission at N.J.A.C. 19:61 implementing same, the Uniform Code of Ethics and other ethics requirements pursuant to other statutes and gubernatorial Executive Orders.
Accordingly, Commissioners are required to recuse themselves from any official matter in which s/he has a direct or indirect financial or personal interest that is incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her public duties. N.J.S.A. 52:13D -23(e)2 and Uniform Code of Ethics, last revised July 2021, Paragraph IX Recusal on Official Matters. Commissioners are also required to recuse themselves from any official matter if s/he had any involvement in that matter, other than on behalf of the State, prior to commencement of his/her State service. Thus, the concerns raised in your letter regarding potential conflicts of interest, should such arise, would be addressed by the recusal process.”
4. Given the resistance and dismissal of my prior Jan. 14 request and Ms. Roth’s support for what appears to be the Pinelands Commission’s case by case voluntary Commissioner originated recusal process, I request that the State Ethics Commission intervene and conduct a de novo review of this matter, including:
a) clarify – procedurally and substantively – exactly what Ms. Roth meant by writing “the concerns raised in your letter regarding potential conflicts of interest, should such arise, would be addressed by the recusal process.”
Whatever this means, is this consistent and in compliance with all State ethics requirements?
b) require public disclosure or all former and current corporate clients, individuals and interests these Commissioner have personal, financial or other relationships with;
c) require public disclosure of all documents filed pursuant to Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order #2; and
d) require mandatory categorical recusals for any and all these clients, individuals and organizations – on a prospective basis, i.e. recuse now, before a potential conflict emerges in the future on a voluntary case by case basis.
Under these circumstances, Commissioner’s should not be the judge of a potential conflict or appearance of one, nor should Ms. Roth as ethics officer, because she is too close to and captured by the Commission and has shown a pattern of insensitivity to ethical conduct.
I appreciate your assistance and would be glad to discuss this matter of provide additional supporting information.
Respectfully,