Ex. Director Overruled Staff Findings On Revolving Door “Post Employment” Restrictions
“Advisory Opinion” Allowed DEP Deputy Commissioner To Return To Represent Corporate Polluters, Despite Ethical Conflicts And Employment Prohibitions
One Month Later, Gov. Murphy Nominated Ex. Director To Be A Superior Court Judge
This one is corrupt at the core, a perfect example of how the “go along to get along” selfish careerism that runs rampant in NJ politics and government sells out the public interest and corrupts law and institutions and individuals.
It’s a complicated story, but really quite simple: Joy – Michele Johnson (JMJ), as Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission, did a political favor for Gov. Murphy’s Team. The governor is the politician that had hired her, promoted her, and “made” her judicial career. As a result, she returned the favor by issuing an “Advisory Opinion”, and just one month later was nominated by the Governor to be Superior Court Judge.
The facts, law, and chronology stink out loud.
The only question in my mind is whether there was an illegal explicit quid-pro-quo, or whether the Executive Director did the favor as part of her audition for the Superior Court judgeship.
The latter scenario would add a deep irony to the situation, as NJ Ethics law requires that a State Official recuse from any involvement with the party they are interviewing with and seeking a job from when leaving government. Applying that law, perhaps the Executive Director should have recused from deciding any ethics cases involving Murphy administration officials while she was seeking the Gov.’s nomination to be a Superior Court judge? I am not familiar with the judicial nomination process, but surely the person that receives a Governor’s nomination must actively seek or at least know about being considered for the position 30 days prior to the nomination, yes?
Obviously, I would have raised these issues during the Judicial confirmation process (thus the incentive for JMJ and the Ethics Commission to delay the release of and bury this information, as documented below).
So let me just lay out the basics, before I get into the weeds to tell the story of what went down.
As usual, particularly because these are serious allegations, I provide the receipts (official documents, dated and signed) to factually support my claims.
It’s a shame that I have to write this story here, because I pitched it to two of NJ’s leading political and investigative veteran reporters and have seen nothing in the press.
I) The Ethics Law Framework
Here it is, and not in a nutshell:
In order to limit “revolving door” abuse, NJ State Ethics law imposes “post employment” restrictions on high level state officials.
The ethics law flat out prohibits a State official from working for any corporate interests they were substantially involved with as a State official (emphases mine):
N.J.S.A. 52:13D-17 provides:
No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee, subsequent to the termination of his office or employment in any State agency, shall represent, appear for, negotiate on behalf of, or provide information not generally available to members of the public or services to, or agree to represent, appear for, negotiate on behalf of, or provide information not generally available to members of the public or services to, whether by himself or through any partnership, firm or corporation in which he has an interest or through any partner, officer or employee thereof, any person or party other than the State in connection with any cause, proceeding, application or other matter with respect to which such State officer or employee or special State officer or employee shall have made any investigation, rendered any ruling, given any opinion, or been otherwise substantially and directly involved at any time during the course of his office or employment. Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this section is a disorderly person, and shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both.
After leaving office, State officials can’t work for the same corporations they regulated and/or litigated against.
They can’t provide information they obtained during State service that is “not generally available to members of the public” to these corporations.
Having been involved at the highest levels at DEP – including in coordination with the Governor’s Office and Legislators – and been “substantially and directly involved” in many regulatory, enforcement, legislative, and policy decisions for 14 years, I can assure you that there is a ton of critical and controversial information known by high level DEP managers that is “not generally available to members of the public”.
So, as the lawyers say, I know it when I see it.
[Full disclosure: I have technically “violated” this law myself, but I didn’t sell the information to the highest corporate bidder: I leaked it to expose problems at DEP, to protect the public health and the environment, and to promote the public interest, not private corporate interests or my own career interests.]
II) The Facts Of The Matter
In this case, former DEP Deputy Commissioner Sean Moriarty, who also served as DEP’s Chief legal advisory and head of the lawyers in DEP’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, was “substantially and directly involved” in many matters and in those capacities had a vast trove of information “not generally available to members of the public”.
This information included, among other things:
1) the details of sensitive litigation strategies and negotiations with corporate polluters;
2) the legal and scientific uncertainties and limitations, flaws, and gaps inherent in DEP regulations, regulatory policy, and enforcement; and
3) how DEP decisions are made, including not merely the formal regulatory procedures and text of the regulations, but the DEP staff experts, informal networks, underlying policy and scientific vulnerabilities, bureaucratic operations, and political intervention points.
This is critically important information and worth a LOT of money to corporate polluters.
That’s why former DEP managers more than double their already high six figure salaries when they leave DEP via the revolving door (just look at some of the people I’m talking about and where they work, as I name names):
But it is also critically important in protecting public health and the environment and educating the public, the press, and NJ environmental groups.
Mr. Moriarty is a lawyer. He knows the law. During the time he was DEP Deputy Commissioner, he began negotiations with his former law firm. Knowing the law, to his credit, he sought guidance from DEP’s ethics officer and recused from any involvement with cases involving the firm he was seeking employment with.
So far, so good.
But then things went badly wrong.
Bear with me, because I have to rehash some history, because it is extremely relevant to the Moriarty situation, including the fact that I filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission in May of 2024 about Mr. Moriarty’s “revolving door” post employment restrictions abuses.
Incredibly, I unknowingly filed this ethics complaint 4 months AFTER Joy – Michele Johnson (JMJ) issued her “Advisory Opinion” in Mr. Moriarty’s case regarding post employment restrictions in January 2024.
Curiously, because they had already rendered an “Advisory Opinion” four months previously on precisely the post employment restriction issues I raised in my complaint, I never heard back from the Ethics Commission staff. Why didn’t Commission staff just send me a simple good faith email notification, e.g. “we already decided that matter in January”, if not the text of the Advisory Opinion?
Getting back to the context. Here is the chronology:
a) Gov. Murphy hired JMJ where she worked in the Gov.’s Office Authorities Unit, see JMJ’s LinkedIn page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joy-michele-johnson-300a95124/
b) Gov. Murphy subsequently appointed JMJ Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.
c) JMJ signed off on and issued an “Advisory Opinion No. 44″ regarding DEP Deputy Commissioner Moriarty issued January 4, 2024. The opinion overruled the fundings and conclusions of ethics commission staff.
During their investigation, the Ethics Commission Officers found that Moriarty was subject to the post employment restrictions. Moriarty appealed that staff decision to the Ethics Commission and asked for an Advisory Opinion. (see below screen shot of the document)
Specifically note the strong and significant staff finding that:
“the [Deputy] Commissioner [Moriarty] was substantially and directly involved in each of the two litigated matters and would thus be permanently barred from being involved in those matters for any party other than the State, and further, that this prohibition would extend to the law firm…”
BOOM!
JMJ signed off on and issued an “Advisory Opinion N. 44” on January 4, 2024. The Opinion overruled the staff findings and conclusions that were appealed by Moriarty.
The Ethics Commission Opinion found that Moriarty did not have sufficient “direct and substantial” involvement to trigger post employment restrictions (see page 10 – 11). They made this finding despite the fact that the Ethics Officers found that Moriarty DID HAVE “direct and substantial” involvement that triggered post employment restrictions.
JMJ did this favor to DEP Deputy Commissioner Moriarty (issued January 4, 2024) in exchange for Gov. Murphy’s nomination to be a Superior Court Judge (nominated just one month later on February 5, 2024), see:
https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/publications/legislative-digest/020824.htm
III) The Revolving Door Abuse At DEP Back Story – Ethics Commission Hid Information And Acted In Bad Faith
Here are the receipts documenting this abuse: (follow the logic)
1) Back in 2021, I OPRA’d the ethics documents and learned the DEP Commissioner LaTourette worked as a private lawyer representing the LNG export facility developer in Gibbstown to get DEP permits. 3 DAYS after he left the private law firm, he joined DEP. NJ Spotlight covered the story and gave me credit, but soft pedaled the criticism, see Spotlight’s story:
Here is the real LaTourette story, where I go into the ethics documents, see:
2) LaTourette also previously worked for a whole bunch of other major corporate polluters and developers too. He had multiple conflicts that he should have recused from and failed to do so (including the notorious DEP Natural Resource Damage settlement with BASF, but Spotlight did NOT report that, see:
3) I filed complaints (plural) with the State Ethics Commission about these conflicts and failure to disclose fully and recuse. They took no action, even though they are required to at least provide a dismissal document under ethics regulations (unless they are still investigating the case, which I strongly doubt).
So the ethics issues at DEP were now “on the agenda” of DEP managers and the Commission, so to speak. They knew I was watching.
Now here’s where it really gets interesting.
4) Last May (2024), I learned the DEP’s Deputy Commissioner and former Director of Regulatory Affairs Sean Moriarty left DEP to return to his prior law firm and represent corporate polluters he previously regulated, and was peddling that experience. I documented that with his LINKEDIn account. I wrote about it as a gross revolving door abuse and asked the State Ethics Commission to investigate, see:
Shortly after that post, Moriarty took down his LINKEDIN page.
5) Subsequently, NJBIA held a “Environmental Regulatory Conference” on June 4, 2024 stacked with 9 current and former DEP high level managers, which I again wrote about as a revolving door abuse, see:
So I again filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission, demanding that they investigate Moriarty for violations of post employment restrictions.
6) Last month, I checked the State Ethics Commission’s website to followup and see whether they ever posted a decision document dismissing my prior complaints about LaTourette and Moriarty. LOOK:
https://data.nj.gov/Public-Safety/State-Ethics-Commission-Final-Decisions/54br-q95u/data_preview
Notice how all the DEP cases are cited by the name of the individual. But curiously, there is one with no name, just titled: “Advisory Opinion” (2024). Gee, I wonder who could that be about?
The Ethics Commission’s “Advisory Opinion” is about Moriarty’s post employment restrictions, and it was issued on January 4, 2024, well after the ethics scandals of DEP Commissioner LaTourette, but 4 MONTHS before I learned of Moriarty’s violations in May 2024, see:
https://nj.gov/ethics/docs/final/2024_advisory_opinion_044.pdf
The Ethics Commission Opinion found that Moriarty did not have sufficient “direct and substantial” involvement to trigger post employment restrictions (see page 10 – 11). They made this finding despite the fact that Ethics staff found that Moriarty DID HAVE “direct and substantial” involvement.
So, just why did Executive Director Of The Commission overrule her staff and sign off on the Advisory Opinion?
Did it have anything to do with her Judicial nomination by Governor Murphy just one month later?
People want to know!
Will the NJ press corps or NJ Bar Association tell them?
