Still waiting for Walsh to call back

By JJ Sullivan
Correspondent

MIDDLETOWN- Democratic Township Committee Candidate Pat Walsh has yet to satisfy demands for answers relating to at least $30,000 she received for her legal defense in a civil lawsuit.

Additional statements and testimony provided by former BOE member Thomas F. Stokes substantiated the presence of another $60,000 of undisclosed debt for Walsh.

Both Stokes and Walsh were called to Trenton on February 25, 2001, to answer questions before the School Ethics Commission.

According to the state records, "Mr. [David] Rubin [the attorney representing Walsh] stated that the legal fees have been an issue in Middletown for some time. At this time, Ms. Walsh stated that the district is still totaling the list of expenses and that now the amount exceeds $82,000, approximately $100,000 over the past four years."

Personal checks described by Walsh as "loans," worth tens of thousands of dollars each, were meant to cover legal funds. Instead, the public record shows the funds have either been improperly disclosed or were not dispersed as originally intended by Walsh.

Despite having the charges dismissed on a technicality by the School Ethics Commission in a 2001 hearing, Walsh faced questions from both partisan opponents and public critics.

Last week, Middletown Township Committee Candidate Tony Fiore called for United States Attorney Chris Christie to investigate the funds received by Walsh for her legal defense. He is now forwarding the information to New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram, as instructed by the Office of the United States Attorney.

The "loan" from school district member Cathy Sullivan was reflected in personal checks endorsed by Walsh, not to mention court records revealed the sworn statements concerning the apparently unreported, unrecorded lending agreement.

"Walsh was responsible for the legal bills discussed by Rubin. The costs under discussion were those financed by 'loans' offered by Sullivan," Stokes added of the alleged admission at an executive hearing in 2001.

The former BOE member said he could not help but act surprised at the discussion topic and apparent disclosure of substantial debt, taking the central relevance of the sworn statement.

"The way [the discussion is described in the minutes], it allows for confusion," he said.

Stokes said that fact could be misconstrued by casual readers puzzled by the wording or verbiage. He clarified that Rubin was not discussing general district legal costs or any fathomable..

Stokes tells all....
"Whether through ignorance or being deliberate," Walsh failed to disclose numerous monetary sums, while she was a BOE official and the beneficiary of interest free loans, loans whose reimbursements were contingent upon the BOE granting payment, an instance yet to occur. And the loans were coming from a woman who was suing the BOE at the time.

The former BOE member became embroiled in a civil suit after a Little Silver judge dismissed all three criminal charges brought against him by Walsh that caused Stokes to lose a job at the time.

The willingness of Stokes to elaborate on the details of the executive hearing, coupled with the existing records, allows for the surfacing of a new allegation that Walsh incurred roughly $100,000 in unpaid legal bills on the for the hiring of a personal prosecutor in the filing of false criminal charges against Stokes and the resulting lawsuit Stokes brought against Walsh over the false criminal charges. These are the legal costs up through September 25, 2001. They actually may even be higher than this figure, as the lawsuit continued beyond this date.

Stokes said he brought attention to the fact that the loan, "even if paid back in full, failed to account for the interest that should have been charged."

Others from the Middletown GOP, questioned both the lack of physical evidence and the potential for overlapping agendas, causing a dispute over the character and credibility of all involved.

Questions regarding the authenticity of Walsh's misstep are beginning to surface as repeated attempts to contact Walsh before deadline were unsuccessful.

"This is very suspect considering that Walsh will not answer anyone’s questions. Just because a state ethics commission dismisses a complaint on a technicality, does not mean that no wrong doing took place,” according to Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger. “State ethics commissions disposed of charges against former Senator Wayne Bryant too, and now he’s on federal trial.”

The Mayor concluded that, "With the recent convictions and trials of Wayne Bryant, Mims Hackett, Sharp James and Howard Schoor, it has become imperative that this type of issue be reconciled with the utmost diligence.”

The hearing v. minutes

Stokes said the minutes of the closed meeting offered a small, general summary of detailed testimony.

The Department of Education noted that the ethics commissions do not keep official transcripts of meetings; rather minutes are recorded and presented as a shorthand overview of the events, acting as the official government record of the meeting.

The 75-minute hearing was reduced to a paltry three pages, causing Stokes to openly question its factual merit, citing the absence of pertinent declarations about future trends and potential shortcomings.

According to Stokes, the minutes left out vital details.

Stokes said he even remembered a woman on the ethics commission asking Walsh a very direct question about the money provided by Sullivan.

"Walsh was specifically asked how much the loan was for and whether or not she had paid back any of it," he elaborated.

Stokes' recollection is that Walsh's attorney had indicated that the fees were in the area of $90,000 and that Walsh answered "No" as to paying any of the loan back as of the hearing date.

Asserted the ethics commission minutes, "Commissioner Mark Finkelstein asked Walsh if the money she received was a loan and not a gift. In response, Rubin replied that there is a petition before the Commissioner to have Walsh reimbursed for all legal expenses and that will be decided after she wins the suits.

He went on to say that Sullivan and Walsh were just friends. Ms Sullivan did not file a gift tax certificate and Ms Walsh did not claim the money on her income tax and there is no paperwork as to this being a loan."

An IRS official allegedly considered the lack of interest on the loan a gift in itself, something Stokes said he specifically mentioned during the hearing yet not reflected in the official minutes.

"Commission Muriel Beekman asked Ms Walsh if she could show any proof that she was repaying the 'loan.' Mr. Rubin responded by saying, 'no, and Ms Sullivan hasn't filed a gift tax certificate, so this is not a gift," the minutes read.

Stokes does not want you, the reader, to take him at his word, and only agreed to go on record because of the recently received OPRA request providing verification.

After being embroiled in legal action with Walsh as both plaintiff and defendant, Stokes realized his statements would be met with skepticism.

"Verification is necessary because most people would see an ulterior motive or a personal axe to grind," he said.

"If I were another person I could see a motive (on Stokes' behalf) to lie or stretch the truth. So, to quote Ronald Reagan, 'Trust but verify.' I can tell people what I know but the credibility of this information would only be strengthened after being substantiated by the records."

Democratic candidate for committee Pat Walsh continued to deflect the issue Cathy Sullivan's gift, denying allegations that she improperly handled the disclosure of so-called "loans" by releasing a video aimed at denouncing the recent filing of a recall petition.

The video said the recall petition erroneously stated that Walsh accepted a $30,000 "gift", making brief mention of sworn statements in her possession, claiming to have proof-positive that a loan from "Kathleen" Sullivan was fully reimbursed.

At the end of the talk, promising the end of a GOP control, a political administration Walsh said was fraught with rampant, thinly veiled partisan corruption. She said a quarter century under Peter Carton's subculture of cronyism and politically motivated appointments were enough to merit change. No examples of corruption were given, nor were there examples provided that were founded on a true assertion of criminal.