Friday, September 2, 2011

UC Performing Arts Center's Role In MusicFest

The Prosecutor's Findings into the role the Union County Performing Arts Center played in the 2010 MusicFest leaves a lot of questions left unanswered, which apparently, the Prosecutor is either willing to overlook or simply accepts, at face value, vague, unsubstantiated answers.

This Is It! Stage Works.  There is no exhibit for a contract between the UCPAC and vendor This Is It! Stage Works attached to the Prosecutor's Findings.  I'll have to assume that one doesn't exist and, in fact, the Prosecutor recommends that the UCPAC enter into written agreements with vendors and artists.  As an aside, since the UCPAC is a non-profit 501(c)(3), I'm curious how the UCPAC explains these kinds of expenditures without documentation to the IRS. Moving on, according to the Prosecutor's Findings, a $17,100 check was issued to This Is It! Stage Works by the UCPAC from the MusicFest account for the June 2010 Summer Arts Festival.  When questioned as to this expenditure, employees at the UCPAC could not explain the reason for paying that invoice from the MusicFest account.  According to the UCPAC website, George Devanney, and Freeholders Deborah Scanlon and Daniel Sullivan sit on its Board of Directors.  I have no way of knowing whether the UCPAC website is current.

Across the River LLC.  Again, there is no exhibit for a contract between the UCPAC and vendor Across the River LLC.  Again, I'll assume one doesn't exist, though in this instance, the Prosecutor's Findings make no mention as to whether a contract exists or not.  According to the Prosecutor's Findings, the County entered into a contract with ATR for $27,500 and the Findings go on to state that in addition to the $27,500 that the County paid ATR, the UCPAC also paid ATR $45,000 and therefore ATR was paid by both the County and the UCPAC.  The Prosecutor's Findings does not indicate whether any employees of the UCPAC were questioned as to this expenditure.  It doesn't appear the Prosecutor's Office contacted the owners of ATR either. The Prosecutor simply accepted Devanney's explanation that certain artists would only perform if contracted through ATR.  Isn't that what the County paid ATR the $27,500 for?  Where is the explanation from employees of the UCPAC, or better yet, its Executive Director?

Prosecutor's Findings here.


Anonymous said...

and at the end of the event UCPAC is sitting on unspent money of $115,000. This is tax payer money and should be returned, yet the prosecutor report syas it is to be used next year. That is illegal in that any unspent taxpayer money is to be returned as part of the ocunty budget fund balanace by law. Plus what about the year before. There may have been unspent 2009 monies being held by UCPAC for 2010, yet the report does not show any money as revenue for the 2010 musicfest. Possible proof would be that 2010's fest was the largest yet, and generated unspent moneis, so it goes to cause that if 2009 event was smaller, there definitely should be unspent monies. Something does not smell right about the UCPAC. The oucnty watchers were right years ago when they said the county should not be involved in UCPAC. It appears it is just another "slush fund" hidden away for the county dem politicans under the guise of "culture". Baldo and now proctor must have their greasy little fingers into it.

NFS said...

@ anon who left a comment @ 9:38 this morning. I am not posting your comment for 2 reasons. First, I don't think it's right to post rumors. Second, I think engaging in that kind of talk sinks the City further to levels I have not seen in a long time. There are more important issues facing Linden, like why no one from this administration attended the Covanta meeting last night. It's a disgrace and I feel Linden is a hopeless case when it comes to holding higher officials/attorneys accountable for their promises. Have we not learned from South Wood Avenue & Morning Star, ISP/Dupont?

Apparently not.

NFS said...

@ Lindenneedsleaders. I was referring to the first rumor. In any event, I did catch the postings, but as I said before, I cannot and will not get caught up in that kind of rhetoric. The MSM does it and I will not entertain that kind of nonsense nor fuel it. I want to stick to the issues that affect us.

If you want to talk privately about it, you can email me at

NFS said...

To the person searching for information on Carriage City in Rahway. Last I heard, the building was in foreclosure. At this point, the bank may own the building. I can research who the bank is. I knew at one point, but forgot now. It is my understanding that a 2-bedroom condo can be bought for $130,000 (or close to it) CASH only. That's a far cry from the $300,000 some people paid. However, who wants to buy a condo in a building of that size that's been foreclosed on? If I were rich, I might speculate at the current selling price, but as an average person looking to buy, I wouldn't.

Which brings us to the South Wood Avenue project. How can Verge claim lost profits when the real estate market tanked? I hope we have good lawyers. I doubt it though. Another example of the UCIA private/public partnership gone awry to the detriment of Linden taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

regarding south wood ave: from what i understand... had the city (and their partners in this: the UCIA) done what they where supposed to do within their timeframe- the buildings would most likely have been up and running before the real estate meltdown

NFS said...

@12:55. Linden had little, if any, control of the project as it named the UCIA as the redevelopment agency.