Monday, August 17, 2020

Another State Cover-up of Lodi’s Misappropriation of Public Funds: Guilty of All Ethics Violations, Dominic Miller had a SECRET “settlement” and “reprimand” that was intentionally withheld from the public…

 

 

Link to a Dominic Miller settlement that I received today:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MxkE8VNM2nkH2EADuC0j_R8lprYF6O-O/view?usp=sharing

 

Dominic Miller and the Attorney General’s Office agreed in their settlement that Dominic Miller’s actions were a violation of all three charges.

 

One of those charges involved a misappropriation of public funds.   The SEC used that term.  Dominic Miller misappropriated public funds.  Lodi taxpayers never got their full amount back.  The Lodi taxpayers are out thousands of dollars.  How can Attorney General Gurbir Grewal sweep a misappropriation of public funds under the rug, concealing it in a secret settlement not released to the public?  Misappropriation of public funds should not only be an ethics violation.  It is supposed to be a crime.

 

All final decisions are supposed to be made public.  This settlement only came to light because I filed an OPRA request two weeks ago.  I only thought about submitting the OPRA request because I had been tipped off by someone from Teaneck that Joseph Licata also received a secret settlement and reprimand:

 

https://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2020/05/joseph-licatas-reprimand-and-settlement.html

 

https://lodioverhaul.blogspot.com/2020/05/no-justice-new-jersey-school-ethics.html

 

Because this blog has appeared in many newspaper articles, I have been contacted by many elected board members and council members from other towns.  Most filed ethics complaints against others.   All said that the School Ethics Commission was a waste of time. They stated that the School Ethics Commission is a do-nothing political body but none experienced these secret settlements and reprimands that have been hidden from the public. 

 

The School Ethics Commission has done complete reversals in most matters after the governor’s office went from Chris Christie to Phil Murphy.  The SEC has also gone out of its way to cover up Lodi corruption after it made strong statements against the same Lodi corruption.

 

Phil Murphy and his Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (who goes around as holier than thou) should be ashamed of themselves for bringing their politics into this very serious case involving a misappropriation of public funds.

 

Phil Murphy’s School Ethics Commission and its director are more corrupt and unethical than any board member that goes before them.  These are the names of the hypocrites that have contradicted themselves time and time again:

 

Kathryn Whalen, Director

 

Robert W. Bender, Chair;
Woodstown, Salem

 

Mark J. Finkelstein; New Brunswick, Middlesex

 

Dan Kaplan;
Livingston, Essex

 

Richard Tomko; Sparta, Sussex

 

Michael Carucci; Lyndhurst, Bergen

 

Michael Collins;
Red Bank, Monmouth

 

Dennis Roberts; Cape May Court House, Cape May

 

Jude A. Tanella

 

In March of 2018, the School Ethics Commission wrote the following in its probable cause notice:

 

After review, and because the record indicates that Respondent expended public tax dollars for a private purpose, and then was less than forthcoming when confronted, there is reasonable ground to find that his actions resulted, or could have resulted, in the Board, as a whole, misappropriating public tax dollars.  Consequently, the Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

 

The SEC also wrote:

 

After review, and because the record indicates that Respondent did not, in fact, have the power or authority to request, or receive, the legal services provided by the Board attorney, Respondent’s actions may have usurped a function that is delegated to others, namely the Business Administrator and the Superintendent.  Accordingly, the Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).

 

The SEC also wrote:

 

After review, and because the record indicates that Respondent, in his capacity as Board President, asked and/or solicited the Board attorney to draft a complaint that was unrelated to Board business, and then the Board and the taxpayers were billed for the work performed, the Commission finds probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).