More than Meets the Eye - Ethics Law Violation

Editorial note – Please share and cross post this to family, friends and neighbors. If you wish to receive this as an email directly, please send an email to betterholmdel@yahoo.com.

We hope that everybody is doing well and keeping safe.

Holmdel Mayor Greg Buontempo and many other officials have provided frequent updates on the developing coronavirus situation. With many good and reliable sources of information available, we will limit our updates on coronavirus.

2020 Primary

The year 2020 is a big election year. Unfortunately, the coronavirus has disrupted not only many lives, but also many events including elections across the country. In New Jersey, some elections have already been affected and have been pushed back to a later date. Unless it is changed, there is a primary election scheduled for June 2nd. In Holmdel Township, two seats for the Township Committee will be up for grabs. In addition, 2020 is also the year for the biennial election of local “County Committee” members.

We have previously written about the power of “the line” and how the Republican County Committee decided to schedule a meeting, whether intentional or not, such that incumbent Mayor Buontempo could not attend to present his case for re-election and Committeeman Dr. Rocco Pascucci could not be present to vote. See https://betterholmdel.wixsite.com/home/post/the-line

Instead, Vicky Flynn and DJ Luccarelli were the two new candidates that easily won the nomination by those present at the County Committee meeting on Feb. 27th. They will be running against incumbent Mayor Buontempo and Ron Emma in the Republican primary.

The timing of this is very interesting!

Ethics Charges Against Critelli

Pursuant to a letter from the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, the Township Committee referred charges of ethics law violation to the Local Finance Board (aka Ethics Board) regarding a payment to Committeeman Tom Critelli’s company Danitom Development in February 2013 for storm damages.

Critelli issued a public statement stating that the Township claims adjuster offered a settlement of $30,000. Critelli went on to say that he had an agreement with then Mayor Pat Impreveduto for $40,000 and the $10,000 payment received was the remaining balance due. Critelli indicated that he didn’t recuse himself from voting on the payment to Danitom as a rookie mistake, since the meeting was either his second or third meeting as a Committeeman.

However, recent documents obtained through OPRA raise several issues with this narrative.

Firstly, in January 2012, Critelli first offered to settle for $39,464. Then, in an email on Feb. 14, 2012 and in response to a counter offer of $20,000, it was Critelli that offered to settle for $30,000. Specifically, Critelli wrote that “… in an effort to resolve this dispute we would be willing to split the difference with you and settle for $30,000. We believe this is more than fair considering the circumstances surrounding this claim.” See email below.

Critelli email to Holmdel claims adjuster.

There has been no evidence produced to support the narrative of an agreement to pay Critelli $40,000 (with $30,000 to be paid by the Township’s insurance carrier and the Township itself pay another $10,000). In fact, it is interesting to note that in July 2013, about five months after the payment of the $10,000 to Critelli, Holdmel Township Administrator contacted the claims adjuster and asked to pay Critelli an additional $10,000. The response from the claims adjuster? Critelli signed the release and $30,000 was disbursed. We stand firm at the $30,000 settlement with Critelli.

Secondly, the $10,000 payment was paid to Danitom Development, Critelli’s company. The basis for this payment was an invoice submitted by Danitom with no supporting details or documentation. At the time of that invoice and payment, Danitom was not a contractor or vendor of the Township. The Township did not request any services of Danitom. If this was an “above board” payment pursuant to a bonafide agreement, why was the payment not paid to Critelli directly? There was no evidence or indication of any assignment of payment by Critelli to Danitom.

Thirdly, the Jan. 21, 2020 letter from the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office (“MCPO”) stated that: “Despite Critelli’s execution of the Release For All Claims, our investigation revealed that there were continued negotiations involving former Mayor Impreveduto and Councilman Hinds to pay Critelli an additional $10,000.”

Regarding the conflict of interest by Critelli in voting for the $10,000 payment to his company, the MCPO letter went on to state “It is disingenuous for Mr. Critelli to claim that he was unaware that he was voting on a check to be issued to his own company, in light of the paperwork that he filled out on February 5, 2013, in order to receive the check.” The paperwork was filled out earlier on the same day as the meeting in which Critelli voted for the payment. The MCPO recommended that the Township Committee refer a complaint to the Ethics Board regarding “irregularities”.

It seems that the issue at hand is not just a case of ethics law violation. The MCPO letter stated that they have insufficient proof to sustain a criminal prosecution. (Emphasis added.) The choice of words used is very interesting. It didn’t say or imply no criminal wrongdoing, but, rather, it seems to imply that they don’t have enough proof to rise to the level for an indictment or conviction.

In the absence of any new information or evidence, it appears that a fraudulent act may have been perpetrated. Remember, there is no evidence of a $40,000 settlement agreement with Critelli, only an email from Critelli proposing a settlement of $30,000 and a signed release for all future claims. The MCPO letter stated their investigation revealed continued negotiations for an additional $10,000 payment to Critelli after he was paid $30,000 and signed the release for all future claims. The additional $10,000 payment was not agreed to by Township insurance carrier, not memorialized in any written agreement and, if the payment was to "settle a lawsuit", it was not included in any resolution nor discussed in any public or closed session of the Township Committee. Danitom was not a contractor or vendor of the Township. The Township did not request any services of Danitom. Instead, it appears that the $10,000 payment was surreptitiously paid to Danitom (and not to Critelli) to be under the radar and to avoid association with Critelli.

Flynn and Critelli

Remember, we said earlier that the timing is very interesting. At that time, it was not publicly known that Flynn is representing Critelli in the matter of the $10,000 payment to Danitom. On Feb. 23, 2020, several days before that County Committee meeting, Flynn sent a “cease and desist” letter to Holmdel Township and advising the Township that they will submit a notice of claim to preserve his right to pursue legal action. In what appeared to be a choreographic move, Flynn was then nominated by the Holmdel County Committee to run for the Township Committee, the same Township Committee she had sent a “cease and desist” letter to and threatened legal action against only a few days earlier.

There is a saying that everyone deserves legal representation. Nevertheless, it is curious that a candidate running for Holmdel Township Committee would, at the same time, choose to legally represent Critelli, a Committeeman that has been mired in conflicts of interest that include not only the $10,000 extra payment in 2013 but also a financial interest in a property that was included in Holmdel’s affordable housing plan and who expressed his strong support of the former Township Administrator in 2019 despite her admission of ethics law violation.

Last but not least, Critelli voted no for the expanded investigation last year and called it a witch hunt. It was this expanded investigation that revealed the $10,000 payment to Danitom and also led to the MCPO letter. As stated by outside counsel before the vote, the expanded investigation was needed due to new allegations that included “Forcing township employees to issue checks improperly, specifically a FEMA reimbursement to an unauthorized individual.” Critelli had to know that the FEMA payment referenced was about the $10,000 payment to Danitom. Despite this, he did not recuse himself and tried to block the investigation by voting no.

Epilogue

In response to Flynn’s “cease and desist” letter, the attorney for Holmdel wrote back:

“At the outset, it should be noted that two weeks ago, Critelli indicated his willingness to resolve this dispute. Rather than advance any resolution efforts, you have prepared a litany of excuses for your client’s unethical conduct. If the amounts Mr. Critelli and his wife received are not immediately repaid within seven (7) days, Holmdel intends to pursue all remedies available to it, including the filing of a complaint.”

The response letter went on to demand repayment of $19,000 from Critelli. Why $19,000? Did we mention there was another payment of approximately $9,000, also for storm damages, later in 2013 after the $10,000 payment to Danitom? And that there was a second “Supplemental Ethics Complaint” filed with the Ethics Board?

Stay tuned. If you thought last year’s Republican primary was interesting, this year’s primary already shows signs to be just as interesting, if not more so.