SUPERIOR COURT OF N J CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Keith A. I3onchi, Esquire (632321983) GOLDENBERG, MACKLER, SAYEGH, MINTZ, PFEEFER, BONCHE & GILL A Professional Corporation 660 New Road, Suite No. 1-A Northfield, New Jersey 08225 (609) 646-0222 FAX (609) 646-0887 Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Martin (Our File No. 62192-18)
MAY 0 2 2017 REC'D & FILED CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAW DIVISION
THOMAS MARTIN Plaintiffs, v.
DOCKET NO. L-25047 JAMES CURTIS EDWARDS; CITY OF BRIDGETON; TRI-COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC. a/k/a GATEWAY COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP; EAS TERN PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT; and JACK SURRENCY,
Civil Action AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRIT
Defendants. Plaintiff, Thomas Martin residing at 425 South East Avenue, Bridgeton, New Jersey, 08302 by way of Amended Complaint against the Defendants say: COUNT ONE 1.
Thomas Martin is a citizen/voter/taxpayer in the City of Bridgeton.
2.
Defendant City of Bridgeton is a municipal government that operates under the
Faulkner Act, and specifically the Mayor-Council "Plan A" form of government which consists of a Mayor along with five council members. 3.
Defendant, James Curtis Edwards ("Councilman Edwards") is a councilman in
the City of Bridgeton. 4.
Defendant, Jack Surrency ("Councilman Surrency") is a councilman in the City
of Bridgeton. 5.
On March 7, 2017, the City of Bridgeton held its regular City Council meeting.
6.
At said council meeting, one of the resolutions on the agenda was Resolution
No. 4347, which regarded the River Grove Housing Project.
7.
Resolution 43-17 sought to sell property known as Block 133, Lots 9 & 20;
Block 134, Lots 14, 15, 16 & 17; Block 136, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4; Block 137, Lots 13 & 14; Block 143, Lots 16, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 56.01; Block 144, Lots 19 & 19.05; and Block 145, Lots 10 & 17 to the River Grove Urban Renewal Housing Partners, LLC. 8.
Resolution 43-17 also named Defendant, Eastern Pacific Development as a
partner. 9.
Resolution 43-17 specifically indicated that one of the partners involved in the
project was Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. Tri-County Community Action Agency is also known as Gateway Community Action Partnership. 10.
At some time prior to the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting, there were
discussions/negotiations between the Defendants City of Bridgeton and Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership relating to the sale and transfer of the above stated properties. 11.
At the time of the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting, Councilman Edwards
was also a member of the board of directors and board secretary for Defendant Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership. 12.
Prior to voting upon Resolution No. 43-17, Plaintiff Thomas Martin requested
that Councilman Edwards refrain from voting on said resolution due to the fact that he was on the board of directors of the Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership and therefore had a clear conflict of interest. 13.
Notwithstanding the fact that Councilman Edwards was the board secretary
and on the board of directors of Defendant, Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership, and notwithstanding the fact that they were a named partner in said resolution, on March 7, 2017, Councilman Edwards cast the deciding vote so that said resolution passed by a vote of three to two. 2
14.
Councilman Surrency also voted in favor of Resolution 43-17.
15.
Plaintiff Thomas Martin filed this complaint in lieu of prerogative writs,
alleging Councilman Edwards' actions were a violation of the Local Public Ethics Law, and specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d) in that Councilman Edwards is board secretary and a member of the board of directors of Defendant, Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. and therefore had direct personal involvement in one of the named partners and said personal involvement might reasonably have been expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. 16.
Councilman Edwards then resigned his position as board secretary and board
member of Defendant Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership. 17.
Defendants will contend that Councilman Edwards resigned his position in
order to "clear" any conflicts and hence not be in violation of the Local Public Ethics Law, and specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22 5(d) It is specifically alleged that Councilman Edwards' resignation was a transparent and ineffective attempt to absolve himself of any conflicts. 18.
On April 18, 2017, the City of Bridgeton held its regular City Council meeting.
The City of Bridgeton introduced Resolution 67-17, which was functionally identical to Resolution 43-17, respecting the identical properties and partners, including Defendant TriCounty Community Action Agency a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership. 19.
Councilman Edwards and Councilman Surrency both voted in favor of
Resolution 67-17, which passed with a vote of 3-1. 20.
Councilman Edwards is the President and CEO of Complete Care Health
Network. Councilman Surrency is the Chairman of the Board of Complete Care Health Network.
3
21.
Complete Care Health Network is a self-described "partner" and "collaborator"
with Defendant Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership. 22.
In addition, Councilman Edwards and Councilman Surrency have continuing
connections with Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership, including but not limited to the fact that Bridgeton Mayor Albert Kelly is the President and CEO of Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership. Councilman Surrency is also a former board member of TriCounty Community Action Agency, Inc. a/k/a Gateway Community Action Partnership, 23.
Furthermore, Mayor Kelly and Councilman Edwards are all board members of
the Bridgeton Municipal Port Authority (BMPA). The BMPA will be directly affected by Resolution 67-17. 24.
Councilman Edwards and Councilman Surrency had a clear conflict of interest
and were required to disqualify themselves from voting on Resolution 67-17 at the City Council meeting of April 18, 2017. 25.
Councilman Edwards and Councilman Surrency's votes in favor of Resolution
67-17 constituted a violation of the Local Public Ethics Law, including but not limited to N.J.S.A, 40A:9-22.5(d). 26.
The citizens of every municipality have a vested right to the disinterested
services of their elected officials, whose undivided loyalty must be to serve the public good. 27.
Both the above cited statute and, the common law require that municipal
officials avoid conflicting interests and disqualify themselves from voting when they have said conflict of interest. 28.
Furthermore, Resolution 67-17 was not on the Agenda for the City Council
meeting of April 18, 2017. Resolution 67-17 was raised and voted on only after another 4
councilman, who had previously voted against the prior version, Resolution 43-17, had left the meeting. The timing of the aforementioned action was for the express and impermissible purpose of denying a vote to a known dissenter. 29.
The actions of Defendant, City of Bridgeton in passing Resolution No. 6747
were illegal and ultra vires in that Councilman Edwards and Councilman Surrency could not lawfully vote on this resolution. 30.
As a result of the above, the actions of Defendant, City of Bridgeton were in
violation of both the Local Public Ethics Law and the Common Law Ethics Law and are therefore invalid Therefore, Resolution No.'s 67-17 and 43-17 are null and void. 31.
As a result of the illegal actions of Councilman Edwards, Councilman
Surrency, and the City of Bridgeton, said resolution is null and void and Plaintiff has been damaged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and/or severally for: a)
An Order declaring Resolutions 4347 and 67-17 null and void;
b)
Damages;
c)
Interest;
d)
Costs of suit;
e)
Attorney's fees; and
f)
Any other relief deemed just and equitable.
GOLDENBERG, MACKLER, SAYEGH, MINTZ PFEFFER, DONUT( & GILL
By: KEITH A. BONCFH, ESQUIRE
5
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1 I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey, with the firm of Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi & Gill, counsel for the above named Plaintiff. The matter in controversy in this case is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding nor is any other action or arbitration proceeding contemplated At this time, there are no other parties who should be joined in this action. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. GOLDENBERG, MACKLER, SAYEGH, MINTZ PFEFFER, BONL:DI & GILL
By: KEITH A. BONCHI, ESQUIRE Dated: May I., 2017 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO RULE 1:38-7(c) I hereby certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted fro documents now submitted to the Court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b). GOLDENBERG, MACKLER, SAYEGH, MINTZ PFEFFER, BONCW & GILL By: Dated: May 4, 2017
6
