Republican lawmakers have asked Attorney General Jennifer Davenport to investigate what they describe as an attempt by the Newark City Council to award lifetime taxpayer-funded health benefits to an outgoing councilman through a last-minute “rule relaxation” that they say may have violated state law.
In a letter sent Thursday, Assemblymen Brian Rumpf (R-Lacey), Gerry Scharfenberger (R-Middletown), Al Barlas (R-Cedar Grove), and Michael Inganamort (R-Chester) urged Davenport to review whether Newark officials attempted to grant benefits to former Councilman Carlos Gonzalez in violation of state law.
The request followed a New Jersey Globe report that the Newark City Council was considering a resolution to provide Gonzalez with lifetime health benefits despite his status as an elected official rather than a city employee.
The proposed resolution sought to classify the retirement prize as a “fringe benefit” typically reserved for employees with at least 25 years of service. Gonzalez served twenty years on the Newark City Council and did not seek re-election this year.
“Taxpayers deserve accountability, transparency, and the responsible stewardship of public funds,” the legislators wrote. “Public confidence in government is undermined when elected officials receive benefits that may exceed what the law permits.”
The GOP lawmakers argued that New Jersey law generally conditions eligibility for full-time health benefits on minimum work-hour requirements and that part-time elected officials are ordinarily ineligible unless they satisfy statutory thresholds. They expressed concern that municipalities may be using private insurance arrangements to circumvent restrictions on participants in the State Health Benefits Program.
They also requested that the Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity and Accountability conduct a separate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the proposed benefit.
“It is our hope that during your investigation, this proposed ‘one-time rule relaxation’ was merely that, a one-time incident, and not an established practice of the Newark City Council to take care of their outgoing colleagues,” the lawmakers wrote.
The controversy drew increased attention after the City Council declined to act on the resolution at its meeting Thursday. The legislators suggested the measure might have advanced had it not been subject to public scrutiny and intervention requests sent to state officials.
“What is perhaps apparent, from the last-minute decision by the City Council not to take action on Resolution 26-0910 at today’s council meeting, [is that] had there not been published news reports of this proposed ‘fringe benefit’ award … the Newark City Council was poised to award taxpayer-funded lifetime health benefits to a fellow elected official on their way out the door,” Rumpf, Scharfenberger, Barlas an Inganamort wrote.
The lawmakers said New Jersey’s history of public corruption and abuses involving taxpayer-funded benefits warrants close scrutiny of the proposal.
“This blatant attempt of political cronyism does nothing but erode public trust in government,” the letter stated. “Government benefits must be administered according to the law, not based on political influence, personal connections, or preferential treatment.”