A legal opinion sought by the county counsel says that Commissioner Will Morey has a conflict of interest that disqualifies him from voting when it comes to the issue of the future of the Cape May Airport.
The opinion’s author, Fredric L. Shenkman, the county’s special counsel on ethics issues, says in his July 7 report that “Commissioner Morey has a direct pecuniary interest in the airport” and that “as such, he is precluded him (sic) from voting on matters related to the airport.”
Shenkman, of the Cooper Levenson law firm, further concludes, “Because the income of the park inures to the airport, Commissioner Morey should also be precluded from voting on items related to the park,” referring to the industrial park located at the airport.
Morey, through his attorney, Steven Fram, flatly denies there is any conflict.
Fram has invited anyone who feels that Morey is in violation of conflict rules to file a complaint with the state Local Finance Board, which has ethics oversight.
He said that he and Morey “are confident that any fair and independent body that is familiar with the LGEL [the local government ethics law] and applicable principles will have no difficulty in rejecting any claim of a conflict.”
In a further twist, on Monday, July 7, Fram charged that Schenkman was in a conflict of interest by ruling on Morey.
He emailed County Counsel Jeff Lindsay that ties between Morey and his family and the Cooper Levenson firm create an ethics conflict for Shenkman, who, he argued, cannot work on a legal matter averse to Morey as his firm’s client.
Lindsay dismissed Fram’s analysis in a reply email. He conceded that Morey is free to reject the ethics counsel’s opinion, which he shared, but that the opinion does not change; whatever consequences come from that are Morey’s. Lindsay then tells Fram to advise his client that Fram’s analysis “construes the law beyond its reasonable limits (if not outright twists it to fit the desired results).”
The conflict matter arose as the commissioners faced a key decision on the airport’s future, the awarding of a bid for operation and management of the site. The awarding of a 10-year contract was on the commissioners’ July 8 meeting agenda; that meeting occurred after the Herald’s print deadline.
The commissioners last year notified the Delaware River and Bay Authority, the airport property’s current manager under a 30-year lease that expires in 2028, that they would not automatically renew the lease, and this spring they sought bids for a new manager. The bidding period closed in May.
Morey has been opposed to moving to a new airport operator, arguing that not enough effort has gone into seeking a modified arrangement with the DRBA, especially since that agency has invested more than $32 million in airport capital projects, money that would have to be repaid by the county if the DRBA is replaced.
Morey, who has 12 years of experience as the county commissioner charged with oversight of the airport and the relationship with the DRBA, has also argued that more time should be allocated to informing the public about the issue and getting feedback before so consequential a decision is made.
But Lindsay took the position that Morey has a conflict of interest with respect to the changes being considered at the airport. Lindsay said in an email to the Herald, “In my opinion, there clearly is a conflict of interest.”
Lindsay also informed Morey that the matter had been referred to the county special counsel on ethics issues. Special counsels are outside attorneys commonly used by local government bodies for areas requiring special expertise.
The conflict that Lindsay claims revolves around Morey’s long-term lease for space at the airport, a lease that predates his election as a commissioner.
Aero Associates, a group for which Morey is the managing member and for which he executed a guarantee of payment and performance, has an assigned lease for approximately 8,500 square feet of space from Cape Auto Sales.
This financial arrangement serves as the basis for the claim of a conflict of interest. But Fram dismisses this as a “minor and indirect interest,” adding: “We do not believe that there is any reasonable basis to argue the lease would reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.”
Lindsay counters that the Local Finance Board takes months to render an ethics opinion and the Board of Commissioners could not be expected to wait so long to act in the public’s interest. In a blunt reply to Fram, Lindsay accused him of having “a history of offering sham opinions in an effort to shield Mr. Morey.”
Lindsay told the Herald that he was not suggesting that “Commissioner Morey had engaged in an unethical manner up to this point.” He added that he has advised Morey to remain silent on many matters related to the airport and to wait “to discuss airport issues” until the opinion from the special ethics counsel was available.
The problem this advice presented for Morey was that the legal opinion was received just before noon on Monday, July 7, with the commissioners scheduled to vote on a bid award July 8.
In an email to Lindsay on July 6, Morey cites remarks from the solicitor that Morey feels are at odds with the appearance of the bid decision on the July 8 commissioners agenda.
Morey wrote to Lindsay, “So, your advice and rationale on June 25 about waiting to receive the legal opinion you were seeking, namely because there was ample time before the [bids] would be considered so it impacts nothing, essentially disappeared with the [bids] being placed on the agenda for this Tuesday.”
Morey went on to note that the promised opinion, which finally arrived on July 7, “leaves us approximately one day to review the opinion, discuss the matter and, if needed, determine if/how any potential conflict issues might be resolved.”
The commission leadership had made no move to shift the vote to a subsequent agenda to allow time for such discussions. In fact the bid award resolution was placed on the consent agenda, which is used for grouping routine and noncontroversial items together for a single vote, usually without discussion.
The Morey conflict of interest issue surfaced in part as a response to an invitation from the Herald to three commissioners to discuss the airport plans and the potential $32 million repayment obligation that would fall to county taxpayers.
The invitation seems to have provoked the first advice from Lindsay to Morey of the potential conflict. Attempts to hold the gathering while avoiding a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act did not result in the parties’ agreeing to meet due in part to the conflict of interest issue.
A June 29 email from Morey to Lindsay laid out Morey’s concerns about the airport: “When the financial implications are so significant, our taxpayers deserve to be informed.” He added that “every reasonable ‘stone’ be turned to achieve the best outcome for them and their families.”
The issue for Morey, as he has stated it in various ways, is that the commissioners were rushing to judgment on an award when no circumstances require haste. He has argued for more deliberation, more public involvement and more definition of the county’s goals in a changed relationship concerning the airport.
The issue for Lindsay as the legal representative of the commissioners as a body is that he has an external legal opinion to support his belief that Morey has a conflict of interest and must step back from airport and industrial park issues that the commissioners were poised to decide.
In all of the exchanges of emails the commissioners, through Lindsay, have not responded to the questions Morey has raised about the lack of public discussion. Morey says that lack is at the core of his concern about the airport issue.
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.