Norcross Indictment Shows That NJ DEP Engaged In The Same Corrupt Regulatory Practices As NJ EDA
Norcross Lobbyists Provided Access To Draft Regulations Prior To The Public Process
Lobbyist Given Secret Regulatory Favor
Similar Corrupt Practices Are Widespread In NJ State Government
Piñata Part 2
As a longtime DEP regulatory practitioner and external DEP watchdog, as I read it, the Norcross indictment document is proving to be a giant piñata of corruption.
The text above is an excerpt from page 19 of NJ Attorney General Platkin’s indictment of George Norcross et al. Focus on the phrase “prior to any public comment period on the applicable regulations”, because that is where the corruption is exposed.
The excerpt shows that a Norcross lobbyist was provided access to EDA and given an opportunity to make secret changes to EDA draft regulations before the regulatory public process.
Because the Norcross requested change to the regulatory provision in question was drafted BEFORE any public process, there is no accountability, because the EDA draft regulatory documents and the lobbyists’ email request are not public documents and not part of the administrative record on the rule in question.
Under legally required “public notice and comment” regulatory procedures, the Norcross lawyer lobbyist would have to submit public comments on proposed draft EDA regulation and EDA would have to publish both the lobbyists’ comment and the EDA response (in this case, granting the special request by the Norcross lobbyist).
Given that this regulatory favor by EDA is a fact that is included in the indictment, one can assume that it represents, at best, improper activity, wrongdoing, or possible criminal activity.
This is an example of a subtle and arcane way that private special interest corrupt the regulatory process.
I’ve witnessed it multiple times during my career at DEP and I even once blew the whistle on exactly the same corruption by Gov. McGreevey’s DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell. (PEER Press Release, 7/5/05)
Trenton — The head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
gave a prominent developer an advance look at streams that would be designated for protection months before the list was published for public comment, according to emails released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The state agency subsequently dropped the stream protection plans that would have interfered with the developer’s projects.In an October 28, 2002 email to DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell, Joe Riggs,
President of K. Hovnanian, a major New Jersey developer, opposed additional
protections for several high quality streams and rivers, including the Peckman
River, Lopatcong Creek, Pequannock River, Mill Brook and South Branch of the
Raritan River. The company objected to placing these stream buffer lands off
limits to building because that would preclude sewage treatment plant expansions
needed to serve its projects. […]“These documents reveal troubling behind-the-scenes political influence that ultimately undermined protections for high quality New Jersey trout streams and rivers,” commented New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP official.
Hit the link above to read all the documents, including the smoking gun emails.
Here is my reply email to Commissioner Campbell on Mr. Riggs’ requests.
I filed an ethics complaint as well.
The complaint ultimately was dismissed by the State Ethics Commission: (PEER Press Release 11/5/05)
Trenton — The Executive Commission on Ethical Standards has dismissed without explanation a complaint that New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell improperly gave confidential deliberative regulatory information to developer Joe Riggs, President of K. Hovnanian. As a consequence, there will be no sanction against Campbell for providing developers extremely valuable inside information about agency plans well before they were made public.
The request for ethics review was filed on July 5, 2005 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) concerning politically connected developers getting the inside track on stream classification decisions worth millions of dollars.
The legislature should amend laws to explicitly prohibit these systematic corrupt practices and expand transparency.