Update: the hearing
for this case has been rescheduled once again.
It is now scheduled for August 2019.
The Carafa team managed to postpone it enough times to push it past the
May Election.
Page
5
“In order
to credit the allegation of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the
Commission must find evidence that Respondent Carafa acted in his official
capacity in a matter where he had a direct or indirect financial involvement
that created some benefit to him. As indicated above, Respondent
Carafa, in his capacity as a Board member, voted on a motion which was personal
to him, and the result of which created a personal benefit to him, namely
continued membership on the Board. As
such, the Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 1.”
“In Count 2, Complainant alleges
that by participating in the vote on whether Respondent Carafa should be
removed as a Board member, Respondent Nardino surrendered his independent
judgment to Emil Carafa and a powerful political group. Although Respondent Nardino historically
recused on matters related to the Carafa family, he voluntarily chose to vote
on whether Respondent Carafa, a member of the Carafa family, should remain as a
Board member; as a direct result of Respondent Nardino’s vote, and those of
others, Respondent Carafa was able to keep his seat on the Board. In addition, because of Respondent Nardino’s familial relationship to
Emil Carafa, an individual who serves as the Mayor, a Principal in District,
and is Respondent Carafa’s father, it appears that Emil Carafa has some level
of control, actual or perceived, over the actions of Board members, including
Respondent Nardino. For these reasons,
the Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent
Nardino violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code in Count 2.”
Page
6
“In Count
3, Complainant alleges that by participating in the vote on whether Respondent
Carafa should be removed as a Board member, Respondent Miller surrendered his
independent judgment to Emil Carafa. Because of Respondent Miller’s
position of employment (and the appearance of Emil Carafa’s authority over that
position), the fact that Emil Carafa appears to have contributed thousands of
dollars to Respondent Miller’s Board campaign, and the fact Respondent Miller
was promoted to a new position shortly after he was appointed to the Board, it
again appears that Emil Carafa has some level of control, actual or perceived,
over the actions of Board members, including Respondent Nardino. Even if Emil Carafa does not have this
control, it appears that Board members, such as Respondent Carafa, take action which
favors members of the Carafa family.
Consequently, the
Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent Miller
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code in Count 3.”
“Additionally,
Complainant shall no longer be party to the Complaint. Where the Commission finds probably cause and
transmits a Complaint to the OAL pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6A:28-10.7(c)(2), the attorney for the Commission
shall prosecute those allegations in the Complaint which the Commission found
probable cause to credit. N.J.S.A.
6A:28-10.7(b)(1).”
Link to the complete PROBABLE CAUSE NOTICE:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5rsibgv_9q_cEtyTnJibDcwTjg/view?usp=sharing
Link to the complete PROBABLE CAUSE NOTICE:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5rsibgv_9q_cEtyTnJibDcwTjg/view?usp=sharing
