Friday, September 29, 2017

3 for 3: Ethics Decision goes against Carafa, Nardino, and Miller.



From the decision I received today:


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: