WolfeNotes.com

Will Next  $1.46 Billion In Federal Sandy Money Lead to More Fiasco’s Like HGI Termination?

Coastal Advocates Give Christie Administration Another Pass

More Christie Climate Denial and Cronyism

[Update: 1/28/14 – NJ Spotlight gets the story partially right today, see: AFTER FIRING CONTRACTOR, CHRISTIE STEPS UP HIRING OF ‘INTEGRITY MONITORS’

But the story still leaves out lots of stuff: 1) like how are they administering the Sandy programs  HGI was responsible for with no contractor in place? Integrity monitors will have nothing to monitor! 2) How can Czar Ferzan and DEP Commissioner Martin’s policies comply with new HUD requirements for second round funding? 3) What will HUD Inspector General do in response to our complaint? – end update]

In a lame article today, NJ Spotlight finally asked the $1.46 billion question:

HOW WILL STATE SPEND NEXT BATCH OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SANDY RECOVERY?

Not only is the NJ Spotlight story far too little and far too late, it pulls punches and actively whitewashes – not just simply ignores – the recent scandal surrounding the termination of the Sandy aid contract with HGI. HGI was NJ’s largest Sandy aid distributor (for details of that story, see this).

Once again, we were months out in front of that HGI story and right on the money too (i.e. see this October 2013 post: Did Christie Select Another Corporate Crony For Sandy Recovery?).

Today’s Spotlight story didn’t just miss the real story and omit critical information (see my below comment on it).

Spotlight coverage actively whitewashed the mismanagement and bad faith efforts by the Christie Administration, specifically including Sandy Czar Ferzan and DCA Commissioner Constable, who failed to disclose that contract termination to Legislative oversight Committee and the media.

And this is not just me speaking – compare the Star Ledger editorial Board’s scathing criticism, with how Scott Gurian at NJ Spotlight covered the issue.

Star Ledger:  Christie officials fire Hurricane Sandy contractor in the dark

State officials apparently saw it fit to quietly terminate their contract with the firm, posting a notice of the settlement reached Dec. 6 on a Treasury Department website, without advising the public. HGI officially ended its $68 million contract Jan. 6.

Just two days later, Richard Constable, who oversees the state’s rebuilding programs, testified for the first time before the state Assembly. He’s in charge of these grant programs that HGI was screwing up. Did he not think it necessary to mention this firing when he defended the administration against its critics? 

Constable didn’t disclose it last week, either, when he cited new signs of progressin the state’s relief efforts, including more grants finally being doled out, and letters sent to applicants on the waiting list to let them know where they stand. Could this be because the state is now trying to remedy HGI’s mistakes?

Marc Ferzan, the so-called Sandy czar, also didn’t bother to share the news in his phone conversation with reporters just three days ago. He had briefly poked his head out of his hole to defend his boss, Gov. Chris Christie, against accusations of political threats in Hoboken. 

Making no mention of the directly relevant HGI termination controversy, here’s Gurian on all that:

Speaking in a hearing before lawmakers a few weeks ago, DCA Commissioner Richard Constable said his department anticipates releasing a draft of its plan by the end of this month. The public will then have a chance comment on it before a final version is officially adopted and submitted for federal review. There are a few key differences, however, between the process this time and the process that culminated in the state’s original action plan for the first $1.8 billion in funding.

Gurian actually makes it appear that Constable is enhancing transparency and public participation, not covering up mismanagement and shutting out the public from Sandy funding decisions.

But its not just these political and management controversies that get short shrift.

In terms of the substance of the story itself, first of all, we laid out the new HUD requirements and asked the same question over 2 months ago and were ignored (see: CHRISTIE CLIMATE DENIAL IMPERILS SANDY RECOVERY FUNDS.)

It would have been far better if media coverage and coastal advocates began making demands about the substance of the new HUD rules and NJ’s failure to comply with them 2 months ago, rather than now, just days before the release of the Christie plan, which effectively is a fait accompli.

But even still, we’re glad that this issue finally is getting some attention.

The new HUD requirements involve science, policy change, planning and public outreach.

Seeing no evidence of compliance by NJ with new HUD requirements – which are far more extensive than a 30 day comment period NJ Spotlight highlighted in this story – and having recently discovered evidence of political abuse and mismanagement of Sandy funds, we filed a complaint with the HUD Inspector General, see:

PROBE OF CHRISTIE SANDY SPENDING SHOULD EXTEND BEYOND TV ADS

Unfortunately for NJ Spotlight readers and the people of NJ, that too was ignored.

It really is amazing that our work gets relegated to the comment section, particularly when the media content and the coastal advocacy work is sub-optimal.

BTW, as I’ve recently advised some of the sources in the Spotlight story, a 30 day written comment period is totally inadequate.

HUD rules require a “transparent and inclusive process” and a “science-based risk analysis” addressing sea level rise and other effects of climate change.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan is the policy framework within which HUD will apply these requirements.

So, a 30 day comment period on a draft plan already developed is sham.

We must demand that the Christie Administration conduct a real planning process, so the the public and competent scientists and planners are involved in developing the plan.

Just look at the termination of the HGI contract for failure to distribute the RREM funds as an example of what poor planning, no public outreach, and flawed program development cost.

[End note: as I have previously observed, give the tone and content of the story and the sources quoted (most if not all of whom are funded by Dodge), I can’t help but think that this story is more Foundation product than real news and journalism. It sure seems like Dodge is buying the kind of coverage they paid for.]