Judge’s retirement party solicits cash for gifts, causes delays in judiciary

A retirement party this afternoon for Glenn A. Grant, who is stepping down next week after more than sixteen years as the controversial acting administrative director of the courts, is facing criticism by some judges who are concerned about the optics, including the collection of cash for a gift and the shutdown of some courts during business hours.

Seven sitting Superior Court judges, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, said they felt uncomfortable with the arrangements, including being pressured to attend, and in some cases, being forced to reschedule court hearings for those who have been waiting considerable time to make their way through the docket.  In one case, a matter was rescheduled for June.

The party is being held at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton from 3-5 PM.  Judiciary employees were collecting $20 per person to attend the celebration, which included $10 earmarked for a gift for Grant.  The invitation instructed attendees to pay by cash, checks made payable to “cash,” or to transit payment to the personal Venmo account of a court employee, Hayley Clark.

“I don’t like the idea that people are paying cash,” one judge said.  “There are so many things that could go wrong.  It doesn’t look right.”

But worse, a few judges suggested, was the appearance of being solicited for gifts to someone who was their boss.  Grant acted as the chief operating officer of the courts and had considerable say over promotions, assignments, and raises.

“They’re soliciting $10 donations from his subordinates.  It’s a relatively small amount of money, sure, but it’s the appearance that we, as judges, are being asked to, what could be interpreted as, providing a modest gratuity to someone who held a great deal of power over our careers,” another judge told the New Jersey Globe. “Judges should be above reproach, not writing out personal checks for cash.”

Some judges acknowledged feeling pressured to attend by superiors, noting that Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, a Grant acolyte, would notice who was there and who wasn’t.

“We certainly feel a pressure to appear, a pressure to be seen, and a pressure to contribute toward his gift,” a third judge stated.  “Some judges felt obligated to kick in $10 just in case the chief asks to see the list.”

One massive gripe listed by several of the judges was that Grant, as acting administrative director, stopped vicinages from holding extended holiday lunches with staff during the workday, insisting that celebrations be limited to just a lunch hour or after the workday was over.

“Is it hypocritical, yes? Am I surprised that hypocrisy benefits Grant?  Not one bit,” one of the judges said.

A fourth judge cited the court’s backlog and the loss of what could be a half-day of court for those who must travel to Trenton.

“Think about the loss of productivity that ripples through the courts when a number of judges are off at a party,” the judge said.  “I’m not comfortable defending that.   The party could have been held in the evening.”

There are also questions about accountability.

Peter McAleer, a spokesman for the courts, refused a request for court rules and policies regarding on-premises social events and a copy of the guest list.

“No public funds have been spent for this event,” McAleer said.  “It is a retirement event to recognize Judge Grant for his many years of service to the judiciary.”

But McAleer would not say if there were increased maintenance and security costs and rebuffed an inquiry about the record-keeping policy when judiciary staffers collect cash.  He did not answer questions about whether judges and other judiciary employees who leave work early to travel to Trenton are taking vacation time or are they being paid to attend a party.  The judges who spoke with the New Jersey Globe who will attend said they have no plans to be off-the-clock.

One legislator, who also asked not to be quoted, refused to rule out asking about the effect that Grant’s party had on the judiciary’s backlog when the judiciary appears before the budget committee next month.

Grant, a modern-day, robe-wearing version of Grigori Rasputin, wielded extraordinary, unchecked power over the judiciary and its $1.1 billion annual budget.  He played a key role in determining what assignments a judge would get.

Several judges say Grant has been known to overstep more than a little in micromanaging the courts, suggesting the assignment of particular cases.  When a judge retires and a better courtroom is available, Grant has intervened to secure better real estate for his friends.  And those are just the little things.   He is known to play favorites; some judges who cozy up to Grant enjoy greater career success than more skilled jurists who don’t play the game.

Today is Grant’s last day; he spent over 25 years as a Superior Court judge.  He will be replaced by Michael Blee, who had served as the Atlantic County assignment judge until Rabner selected him.

In late 2021, the legislature passed a special pension bill that allowed Grant to defer his pension and remain in his post beyond age 70 while still receiving post-retirement health care benefits.

But the approval of Grant’s judicial pension was quietly removed from the State House Commission’s agenda nine months ago, and he has been collecting just 25% of his salary.  Grant was slated to receive a $152,328-a-year pension after retiring from a $203,113 annual salary in January.

It’s unclear whether the pension delay is connected to a February 2024 controversy where Grant ordered municipal court judges to disregard a law passed unanimously by the legislature and signed by Gov. Phil Murphy.

Following an objection from key legislators, the New Jersey Supreme Court backed off a battle over a new statute permitting plea bargaining to allow for ignition interlock devices in minor drunk driving cases.

Editor’s note: the New Jersey Globe sent $20 to Clark through her Venmo account, but it was returned with a note from McAleer that the party was not open to the press, even though it is being held in a public area of the building.   After several days of back-and-forth, McAleer relented.  “The event is not open to the press,” he said in a Friday evening email.  “That said, if you decide to attend no one is going to stop you from entering the building.”