Murphy DEP Crony Hire Raises Huge Red Flags – When Do Ethics Violations And Cronyism Rise To Official Misconduct?
DEP Created And Gov.’s Office Approved A $142,500 Political Job In Record Time
Crony Hire Was Former Colleague Of DEP Assistant Commissioner Cecil, Who Conducted The Interview
No Job Postings, Solicitation, Or Competitive Civil Service Safeguards
This one smells so bad that I think I’m going to refer it to the Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity And Accountability.
The Murphy DEP just made a highly unusual hiring decision that raises multiple red flags.
The DEP recently hired a former NJ Audubon staffer into a $142,500 job, with excellent benefits. Nice work if you can get it.
The job title is “Government Representative 2” – in other words, a lobbyist, not a scientist, engineer, planner, or technician who make up the large majority of DEP staff.
The individual hired is a former colleague of DEP Assistant Commissioner John Cecil, who worked under his management control at NJ Audubon.
Mr. Cecil has ethical issues for his failure to disclose and recuse from DEP decisions related to his prior work at NJ Audubon, which included controversial logging on State lands and multiple “corporate stewardship” projects, including one at Donald Trump’s golf course in Bedminster.
Given these conflicts, one would think that Mr. Cecil would tread lightly and refrain from involvement with NJ Audubon issues.
One would be wrong.
Here’s DEP OPRA reply:
She [Ms. Meistrell] was interviewed on 10/05/23 by AC David Golden, AC John Cecil, and Lisa Barno.
It seems like Ms. Meistrell’s interview on 10/5/23 preceded the creation of her position. Another unusual situation (see below chronology).
Assistant Commissioner Cecil was involved in the creation of the new position, he participated in the interview, and he made the hiring decision – of a former colleague (we will discuss their shared controversial and deeply flawed pro-logging policy views in a future post).
Thus, Mr. Cecil compounded his prior ethical disclosure and recusal lapses with gross cronyism (at a minimum).
But it gets worse.
First, let me explain the unusual timing: (source: verbatim from DEP OPRA response):
The [hiring] request from the Program was submitted in Hiring & Recruitment Platform (HARP) on 12/21/23. Governor’s Office approval was received on 02/01/24 and CSC approval was received on 02/14/24.
I worked at DEP for almost 14 years, 3 years as a political appointee approved by the Governor, and many times personally walked important documents that required DEP Managers and the Governor’s Office approvals, so I know first hand how cumbersome the system is. Under tight budgets and hiring limits, it is very difficult to create new positions, particularly in the $142,500 salary range.
In this case, that all happened incredibly fast, and with several holidays slowing things down. This hiring required approvals of the DEP Assistant Commissioner (John Cecil), the DEP Assistant Commissioner for personnel or Management And Budget, and DEP Commissioner LaTourette. Then the Gov.’s Office and Civil Service and Treasury had to certify available funds.
Second, let’s take a look at the job position itself.
According to DEP OPRA response I just received: (these are verbatim quotes):
There was no Notice of Vacancy (NOV) posted for this unclassified position,
This is an unclassified appointment.
There was no Civil Service exam because this is an unclassified, at-will position.
There was no job posting for this unclassified appointment.
There was no job posting for Ms. Meistrell’s position.
Now that is a truly stunning example of cronyism, special treatment, ethical lapses, and abuse of power.
We will explain the implications for managing State forests and natural resources in an upcoming post.
Meantime, consider:
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or
b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.