Charges of Ethics Law Violation by Committeeman Critelli – Part 2
- Kin Gee
- Jan 28, 2020
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 5, 2020
Jan. 28, 2020 - In law and public relations, there is an expression that a cover-up is worse than the crime. More often than not, this expression is about people in positions of authority who abuse power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrong doing
In case you missed it, the Asbury Park Press published an article today on the letter from the Monmouth County Prosecutor Office asking Holmdel Township to refer violation of ethics law for Committeeman Tom Critelli for a check to his own company. See link below:
In that letter, the Prosecutor Office indicated that then-Mayor Pat Impreveduto and Committeeman Eric Hinds negotiated a payment of $10,000 to be paid to Critelli’s company Danitom. The APP news article reported that:
“Impreveduto and Hinds both said there was nothing improper about the payment, noting that it helped avoid a potential lawsuit by Critelli that could have reached $80,000 or more.”
“The town saved a lot of money in lawsuits,” Impreveduto said Monday. “Everything was above board, there was a bill submitted and it wasn’t nefarious at all.”
Hinds said Critelli’s vote was likely an oversight and did not even make the difference in the approval: “It’s semantics, I guess the lawyer should have known. Someone should have said he shouldn’t have voted on that. We had three votes, it was a good deal.”
As indicated in the letter from Prosecutor’ Office, Critelli had already negotiated a settlement with the Township’s insurance carrier and signed a release for all claims in the prior year. So, based on this, any fear of a lawsuit seems baseless and the assertion that the Township saved up to $80,000 seems spurious.
Now, through an OPRA request, we learned that the bill submitted by Critelli was in the name of his company Danitorm but with his residential address and not the regular business address.
The bill submitted was essentially a demand for payment with no supporting details of what work was done or performed. Other similar bills submitted had details that supported the amount invoiced to the Township. See pictures of the Danitom “bill” and, in comparison, another bill from O’Brien’s Response Management, Inc., also for storm cleanup.
One question that comes to mind was why was this under the name of Danitom and not under Critelli? Was the intent to obfuscate and hide the fact that the payment was really going to Critelli himself? Why an extra payment of $10,000 with no supporting documentation after a negotiated settlement and a signed release?
Not surprisingly, Critelli was quoted as raising questions as to motive and his own suspicions.
What was not said was that this came out as part of new allegations during the initial investigation of violations of ethics law by Township Administrator Donna Vieiro. Among other allegations, former Township CFO Jeanette Larrison had concerns regarding the lack of supporting details for the payment to Danitom back in 2013 but was instructed to just go ahead and make the payment. Specifically, independent counsel Sean Kean stated that the new allegations included “Forcing township employees to issue checks improperly, specifically a FEMA reimbursement to an unauthorized individual.”
When Kean first raised this issue at the June 12, 2019 Township Committee meeting, then-Mayor Hinds, as the presiding official of the meeting, struggled just to even take a roll call for a vote to expand the investigation despite a motion before the Committee. He and other Committee members certainly have the right to voice their opinions and vote yes or no depending on their views for the expanded investigation. However, what was very surprising was that Hinds would hesitate and struggle to even take a vote on a motion legally before the Committee. See Part 1 of the CILU video cited below.
Both Hinds and Critelli have to know that the FEMA payment referenced was about the $10,000 payment to Critelli’s company back in 2013. Based on the letter from the Prosecutor Office, we now know that Hinds was complicit in that payment to Danitom. Furthermore, Critelli, not only did he not recuse himself even though the investigation would involve him and his company Danitom, but also voted no and called the expanded investigation a witch hunt. See video of the June 11, 2019 Township Committee meeting, courtesy of CILU (at approx. 5 minute mark):
Hinds was quoted as saying the payment to Danitom was a “good deal”. It certainly was a good deal for Critelli who, one month after he was sworn in as a member of the Township Committee in 2013, received an extra $10,000 despite a negotiated settlement with the insurance carrier and signed release for all claims against the Township.
Comments