NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

P.O. Box 185

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0185

NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW :

ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, : FINAL DECISION
: OAL DKT. NO. ELE 16681-13
Petitioner, : AGENCY DKT. NO. C-G 0905 04 04
: R2009, C-9 0905 01 01 R2009,C-9 0905 02
v. : 04 R2009, C-9 0905 07 04 R2009
:
PETER CAMMARANO, ANGEL :
ALICEA, RAUL MORALES, VINCENT :
ADDEO, and LUCY TRUGLIO, :
:
Respondents. :

THIS MATTER comes before the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission
(the “Commission”) pursuant to the New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
Reporting Act, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-1 to 47 (the “Act”), following an INITIAL DECISION of the
Office of Administrative Law, Honorable Leland S. McGee, ALJ (Ret. on Recall) which
concluded after a hearing that the Respondents’ Joint Candidate Committee (“JCC”) failed to
timely report over $1,000,000.00 in runoff election transactions, and some of the required
information was still unreported as of the date of the Court’s opinion. There are also charges of
knowingly accepting excessive contributions. Although the Administrative Law Judge did not
determine the exact amount of penalties for each specific violation, he did find that Respondents
were “jointly and severally liable for any penalties imposed for violations set forth in Counts 1 to
15 of the Petition which was filed in this matter.”

Exceptions were filed by Commission Staff (hereinafter “Petitioner”) on August 27,

2018. On that same date exceptions were filed by Respondents Cammarano, Addeo, Morales
and Truglio. On August 29, 2018 Respondent Alicea filed exceptions (two days late). 1 On
September 4, 2018 a reply to the exceptions was filed by the Petitioner. There were no replies
filed by the Respondents.

The Exceptions and Reply submitted are as follows:

1
Absent a showing of good cause, the Commission does not consider late-filed exceptions. Respondent Alicea
proffered no reasons or excuses for filing late. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that Alicia’s exceptions
mirrored Respondent Addeo and Morales’ exceptions.

1
Exceptions by Petitioner (ELEC)

1. Failure of the ALJ to recommend specific penalties;

2. The ALJ erred on its conclusion by excluding certain violations committed by

Respondents.

3. The ALJ ordered that Respondents are jointly and severally liable for penalties
imposed on counts 1 through 15 whereas

A) Respondents Addeo, Alicea, Morales and Truglio are individually liable for
failure to certify violations in Counts 1 through 3 and 5 through 9.

B) Addeo, Alicea and Morales are individually liable for failure to certify
quarterly reports and failure to certify Final Report in Counts 12 through 15.

4. The ALJ erred by citing an incorrect regulation when addressing an excessive

contribution.

5. The Court erred in its recitation of the penalties ELEC is seeking.

6. The Court erred by citing the wrong date for the Decision in ELEC v. Zagari.

7. The Court erred by concluding that at least three commissioners must

affirmatively vote to approve any action by the commission.

8. The Court erred by finding in its October 14, 2016 Order that no party presented
evidence that the currency contributions from Solomon Dwek – David Eisenbach (hereinafter
“Dwek”) were deposited into the campaign account.

Exceptions by Respondent Cammarano

1. Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Complaint addressed the failure to include

required technical information in the joint candidates 11-Day Pre-Election Report, 20-Day Post-
Election Report and Quarterly Reports both in their originally filed and as amended forms. Since
the reports and amended reports were substantially complete (containing approximately 85% of
the alleged deficiencies listed in the various counts of the complaint have been cured) the penalty
imposed should consider that fact.

2. The $20,000 contribution from Florence Amato was not an excessive contribution
from an individual but rather was two separate $10,000 contributions from two individuals and
since the contribution was a loan that has been repaid, no penalties should be assessed for Count
10.

3. Regarding Counts 12, 13 and 14 alleging failure to report outstanding obligations

since these have been cured, no penalty should be assessed.

2
 4. Regarding Count 15 alleging the failure to file Final Report – this was cured by
the filing of a Final Report late and no penalty should be assessed.

5. The Decision which seems to order joint and several liability among all
respondents fails to recognize that ELEC’s Rules and Regulations require individual liability for
candidate’s failure to sign and certify reports.

6. The Respondent had good cause not to file signed reports at any time because of
pending criminal charges and specific advice by his criminal defense counsel not to file and sign
ELEC reports before sentencing was completed in the criminal matter.

7. Respondent Cammarano takes exception with the decisions “summary rejection

of all mitigating factors presented for equitable consideration in the imposition of penalties and
fines in this matter.”

Exceptions of Respondents Addeo and Morales

1. Addeo and Morales are not liable for violations involved

A) in the highly unusual circumstances of this case;

B) where as first time candidates they were affiliated for only 18 days with an
experienced candidate upon whom they relied as a practitioner of election law and
C) who was arrested by federal authorities before completing any post-election
reports.

2. Addeo and Morales are not liable for any violations arising from the Dwek bribes
or the Amato loans because they had no knowledge of those transactions.

3. Addeo and Morales are not liable for any violations arising during the
Cammarano Municipal Committee’s reporting.

4. Any liability on counts not dismissed as against Addeo and Morales is limited by
the presence of numerous mitigating factors with any fine to be applied severally given
Cammarano’s culpability and Respondents’ reasonable reliance upon his representations that the
campaign would handle all reporting.

5. Respondents Addeo and Morales are not liable for the violations alleged in the
Complaint for reasons set forth in other respondents’ post hearing papers.

Exceptions of Respondent Angel Alicea

1. Respondent Alicea is not liable for the violations caused by Cammarano in the
absence of knowledge.

2. Respondent Alicea is not liable for elicited bribes committed by Cammarano

during the campaign.
3
 3. The ALJ failed to properly assess mitigating factors to mitigate the penalty
imposed.

4. Respondent Alicea is not liable for any violations caused by the Cammarano
Municipal Committee’s reporting.

Exceptions of Respondent Lucy Truglio

1. The determination of penalties, and mitigating factors, absence of aggravating

factors and propriety of several penalties.

Reply by Petitioner (ELEC) to Respondents Exceptions to the Initial Decision

1. Petitioner sought dismissal of Counts 1, 2 and 11 as to all Respondents.

2. Petitioner sought dismissal of Counts 7 through 9 as to Respondent Truglio due to

her resignation.

3. Respondents attempt to avoid liability due to their “lack of control and access to
records” must be rejected.

4. The acceptance of contributions from Dwek was not an ultra-vires act on the part
of Respondent Cammarano.

5. The length of Addeo’s and Morales’ campaign and their loss in the election does
not relieve them from liability for violations of the Campaign Act.

6. Respondent Truglio is liable for all of the violations detailed in Counts 3 through
6 and Count 10.

7. Respondents’ argument that penalties may be imposed severally must be rejected.

8. The Court’s determination that Florence Amato made a $20,000 loan to

Respondents JCC is supported by sufficient competent, credible evidence in the record.

9. Respondents have not submitted any facts or circumstances that warrant

mitigation.

10. Respondent Alicea’s untimely filed exceptions contain statements contradicting

the joint stipulations entered into by all parties.

This matter was considered by the Commission at its meetings conducted on September
18, 2018, October 16, 2018, in a telephonic meeting conducted on October 23, 2018 and a
telephonic meeting conducted on November 9, 2018. The deadline for the Commission to render

4
its FINAL DECISION was extended to November 12, 2018 (as this date is a state holiday it is
extended until November 13, 2018).

DISCUSSION

As indicated above, this matter proceeded to a hearing before the ALJ on Stipulated Facts
as supplemented by the testimony of Peter Cammarano at the hearing held by Judge McGee on
October 19, 2016.

In its reply to the exceptions filed by Respondents, Petitioner sought the dismissal of
Counts 1, 2 and 11 on the basis that the Petition seeks to deal with violations by the Respondents
with respect to the runoff election in 2009 and that it would appear because of the overlap
between the 2009 municipal election and the runoff election that some of the contributions and
expenditures in question may have been made in conjunction with the municipal election and not
the runoff election. The Commission grants in part and denies in part the request of Petitioner
with respect to these counts.

In its review of the Petitioner’s recommendation to dismiss the allegations in Count 1 of

the Complaint, the Commission notes in paragraph 8 of the First Count, sub-paragraphs B and C
Respondents are charged with two $5,000 currency contributions received from Dwek. The first
on May 8, 2009 and the second on May 19, 2009. Both contributions were deposited into the
bank account on May 28, 2009. On the 11-Day Pre-Election Report was filed on June 8, 2009,
neither contribution was reported. Both contributions appeared on the October 8, 2010 and
January 12, 2015 amended 11-Day Pre-Election Reports for the runoff election.

One $5,000 currency contribution was received on May 8, 2009, four days before the
May 12, 2009 election. The other $5,000 currency contribution was received May 19, 2009, a
week after the May 12, 2009 election and three weeks before the runoff election. On October 8,
2010, Peter Cammarano filed an Amended 11-Day Pre-Election Report for both the May 12,
2009 election and the June 9, 2009 runoff election. The May 12, 2009 Amended Report
contained a $5,000 currency contribution from Dwek dated April 30, 2009, and the Amended 11-
Day Pre-Election Report for the runoff election contained the May 8, 2009 and May 19, 2009
currency contributions from Dwek for $5,000. The second Amended Report for the 11-Day Pre-
Election Report for the runoff election filed on January 12, 2015 lists both the May 8, 2009 and
May 19, 2009 currency contributions. The third-quarter 2009 report for the runoff election
which was filed on October 10, 2010 contains the $10,000 currency contribution by Dwek

5
received on July 16, 2009. It lists the aggregate amount from Dwek as $20,000. Thus it is clear
that the Dwek currency contributions set forth in paragraph 8 of Count 1 were reported as
contributions for the runoff election. When combined with the July 16, 2009 currency
contribution, the total amount is an excess contribution of $9,600.00 over the $10,400 maximum.
Having claimed in three reports the Dwek currency contributions were for the runoff election,
Cammarano cannot now claim they were for the May 12, 2009 election.2

For these reasons the Commission denies the request to dismiss Count 1 as it pertains
solely to the Dwek contributions but grants the request with respect to all other contributions
listed in Count 1 as well as the expenditures listed in Count 2.

Count 11 charged the aggregate contribution from Dwek to be in excess of the $10,400
limit by $9,600. The ALJ and the Commission having found that the two $5,000 currency
contributions were contributed with respect to the June 9, 2009 runoff election, means that the
total currency contribution for Dwek for the June 9, 2009 runoff election was $20,000 and thus
exceeded the $10,400 contribution limit by $9,600. For this reason the Commission denies the
request to dismiss Count 11 of the Complaint.

Count 10 deals with the excessive contribution claim relating to the Florence Amato loan.
This transaction was made by a check drawn on the account of Florence Amato and signed by
her alone. Respondent Cammarano claims that the loan was made by Ms. Amato and her
husband and that it is therefore not an excessive contribution.

On January 26, 2015, the ALJ granted portions of the Respondents’ Motions for
Summary Decision and dismissed Counts 10 and 11 which alleged excessive contributions from
Dwek and Florence Amato. The Commission on a request for interlocutory review reversed the
ALJ on both excessive contribution claims alleged in Counts 10 and 11 and reinstated them.

In reversing Count 10 the Commission determined that it was undisputed that the Amato
loan was an excessive contribution that was deposited into the campaign depository account. It
further noted that it was undisputed that the contribution was not refunded within 48 hours as
required by N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.5(b). As such the Commission held that the failure to refund the
contributions resulted in a knowing violation by the JCC. The decision determined that

2
The timing of the contributions could have permitted them to be considered as contributions for the May 12, 2009
municipal election in which case they would have been required to be reported on the 20-Day Post-Election
Report which they were not. It appears that the funds were used to pay runoff election expenses.

6
“[n]othing in the Statutes or ELEC’s Regulations require personal knowledge of either a
candidate or the treasurer of a knowing violation.” Decision on Interlocutory Review Page 4.

In reversing Count 11 the Commission determined that it was undisputed that the Dwek
cash contributions were deposited into the campaign depository account. It was further noted it
was undisputed that the Dwek contribution limit was $10,400 and that his contributions
amounted to $20,000 which was in excess of the contribution limit of $10,400. The Commission
further noted that since the excessive contribution was not refunded within 48 hours it became a
knowing, willful and intentional contribution. Finally, it was noted that nothing in the statute
required personal knowledge of the JCC’s acceptance of an excessive contribution. Id.

The ALJ correctly concluded that he did not have the authority to review or reverse the
determination of ELEC on interlocutory review. The Appellate Division has exclusive
jurisdiction to review a state administrative agency action. The Commission believes the ALJ’s
conclusion on this issue was correct.

In their papers submitted to the Commission as exceptions to the Initial Decision,

Respondents again raised the issue with respect to the Amato and Dwek excessive contributions.
In their papers in addition to relying upon the documents that were in the record when the initial
Order of Dismissal was entered, Respondents rely upon the testimony of Peter Cammarano with
respect to the Amato contribution. It is clear that the ALJ rejected the testimony of Cammarano.

The record before the Commission clearly supports the Commission’s determination in
its Decision on Interlocutory Review that the Amato and Dwek contributions were excessive.
That decision on Interlocutory Review is attached hereto.

Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 charge the failure to report certain contributions and expenditures
required by the 48 hour reporting requirement and in the 20-Day Post-Election Report. Counts
7, 8 and 9 charge the failure to report certain contributions and expenditures required in the 3rd
Quarter 2009 Report.

The Administrative Law Judge found that the JCC failed to timely report over
$1,000,000.00 in runoff election transactions and that some of the information remains
unreported to date. Respondents don’t claim that these transactions were timely filed, but assert
that in late-filed and amended reports, most of the information was provided, although
Respondent Cammarano concedes that approximately 15% of the required information has never
been provided.

7
 Counts 12 through 15 allege violations for failure to provide for quarterly reports for the
fourth quarter of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010. These reports eventually were filed
late and do not contain any financial transactions during the reporting period.

All Respondents except Cammarano are charged with failure to certify and sign the filed
reports.

Since Counts 7, 8 and 9 relate to transactions that occurred after Respondent Truglio
tendered her resignation as Treasurer and Counts 12, 13, 14 and 15 relate to reports filed after
her resignation, those seven counts are dismissed as to Respondent Truglio.

DISCUSSION AS TO PENALTIES

In its reply brief Petitioner submitted three separate charts recommending revised
proposed penalty calculations. The Respondents argue that no or very minimal monetary
penalties should be imposed.

As indicated above, it is undisputed that Respondents failed to file timely reports

containing all of the information required by Statutes and Regulations. Since it is undisputed
that the violations occurred and because the ALJ did not properly calculate and provide the
Commission with recommended penalties, the Commission is left with two options. The first
option is to remand the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings to
propose appropriate recommendations with respect to the penalties to be imposed. None of the
parties have requested a remand. The second option is to review the information in the record
and determine the appropriate penalties.

Any person who is charged with the responsibility for preparing, certifying or filing
reports who fails to do so in the manner and time proposed by the Act and Commission
regulations “shall…be liable for a penalty of up to $6800.00 for each offense.” N.J.S.A. 19:44A-
22; N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3. Moreover, N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.2 states that each transaction that is not
reported in the time and manner prescribed by the Act and the Commission’s regulations
constitutes a separate offense.

Penalties for failure to file and late filing of reports and reporting transactions are further
addressed in N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3A and 17.3B respectively. N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3A reads as
follows:

8
 “In determining the amount of penalties to be imposed for the failure to
file a report or a reporting transaction, the Commission shall consider
such offenses as more egregious than late filing of that report or that
reporting transaction, and the Commission shall impose penalties as
provided in this section, and the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
factors set forth in N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C.”

In determining a penalty for late filing of reporting transactions, The Commission must
consider the failure to provide pre-election disclosures, the number of days late and the dollar
amount involved and “shall impose a penalty that is a proportion of the amount of each
contribution and expenditure reporting transaction that was reported late.” N.J.A.C. 19:25-
17.3B(c). N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C also instructs The Commission to consider the presence of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:
1. The serious and unanticipated illness or unanticipated hospitalization of a
Respondent or a member of the Respondent’s immediate family at the
time a report was required to be filed;
2. The undue financial hardship of a Respondent; and
3. Receipt of full or partial payment of a pending penalty amount prior to
The Commission’s Final Decision Action. N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C(e).

The Commission must also consider prior penalties imposed for similar violations with
similar circumstances. N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C(c). In the past, The Commission has imposed 10%
penalties for late reporting. See ELEC v. Gibbons and Bleiski, ELEC v. Jandoli and Bleiski,
ELEC Docket No. C-9 1410 02 01-G2005; ELEC v. Maly, ELEC Docket No. C-9 0702 03 01-
G2005; ELEC v. Cesaro, ELEC Docket No. C-9 1429 04 02-G2009. Similarly, The
Commission has imposed a penalty greater than 10% of the sum of late reported contributions
and expenditures where the respondents failed to report complete contribution or expenditure
information. See ELEC v. Vrtaric, ELEC Docket No. C-9 1225 10 02-G2005. Excessive
contributions are penalized at 50% of the portion of the contribution that was excessive. See
ELEC v. Schilling, ELEC Docket No. C-3 0100 11 02-P2007. There are no prior decisions
dealing with violations of the $200 currency contribution limit. Therefore, the penalty for this
violation will be a matter of first impression. The Commission views this as a serious violation
and determines the penalty should be 100% of the amount in excess of $200.00.

9
 The penalties for contribution in excess of the $200.00 currency limit, late reported and
incomplete contribution and expenditures and excessive contributions in this matter are as
follows:
JOINT AND SEVERAL AS TO ALL RESPONDENTS

There is no prior penalty for currency contributions over $200.00.

COUNT VIOLATION AMT OF TRANS PENALTY NOTE

Count 1 $9,800 currency contribution $9,800.00 $9,800.00 100%
in excess of $200 limit

Count 3 Late Reported Contributions $211,675.58 $21,167.56 10%

Incomplete Late Reported $2,000.00 $100.00 5%+

Contributions

Late Reported Contri- $18,000.00 Reprimand only

butions from Cammarano
and Alicea

Count 4 Failure to file 48 hour $14,550.00 $34,000.00 max @50%

notices for 5 contributions in $7,275.00
excess of $1,200

Count 5 Cash contributions of $300 $77,444.54 $6,800.00 Penalty

or less

Count 6 1147 late reported $194,180.47 $19,418.05 10%

expenditures

152 incomplete late reported $13,077.00 $653.85 5%

expenditures

Count 10 Amato $9,600 excessive $9,600.00 $4,800.00 50%

contribution

Count 11 Dwek $9,600 excessive $9,600.00 $4,600.00 50%

contribution

10
 JOINT AND SEVERAL AS TO RESPONDENT CANDIDATES ONLY
Late Filed 3rd and 4th Quarter 2009 Reports
1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2010 Reports

COUNT VIOLATION AMT OF PENALTY NOTE

TRANS
Count 7 Failure to timely report $25,300.00 $2,530.00 10%
21 contributions on 3rd
Quarter 2009 Report

Incomplete late reported $1,000.00 $50.00 5%+

contributed

Cammarano $700.00 Reprimand only

Count 8 Contributions $300 or $675.00 $67.50 10%

less

Count 9 Late reported $10,677.00 $1,067.70 10%

expenditures 3rd Quarter

Count 12 Late filed $0.00 Reprimand only

Count 13 Late filed $0.00 Reprimand only

Count 14 Late filed $0.00 Reprimand only

Count 15 Late filed $0.00 Reprimand only

The penalties for failing to certify and sign reports in this matter are as follows:

FAILURE TO CERTIFY INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY

COUNT REPORT MAX PENALTY PENALTY NOTE

Counts 3, 5 & 6 20 Day $6,800.00 $1,700.00 Addeo, 25%
2 Reports Alicea, Morales, Once per cycle
Truglio

Counts 7, 8 & 9 3rd Quarter 2009 $6,800.00 $1,700.00 Addeo, 25%

2 Reports Alicea, Morales Once per cycle

Counts 12, 13, 4th Quarter 2009 $0.00 $0.00

14 & 15 1st Quarter 2010 $0.00 $0.00
2nd Quarter 2010 $0.00 $0.00
3rd Quarter 2010 $0.00 $0.00
Final Report $6,800.00 $1,700.00 Addeo, 25%
Alicea, Morales

11
Totals
Addeo $5,100.00
Alicea $5,100.00
Morales $5,100.00
Truglio $1,700.00

After initially determining that the penalties stated above are the appropriate penalties for
the violations by the Respondents, the Commission is then required to evaluate any aggravating
and mitigating factors. Just as there is an absence of aggravating factors, so also there is an
absence of mitigating factors.

In their submissions, the Respondents do not argue that the specific mitigating factors set
forth in N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C(e) apply but argue that mitigating factors are not limited only to
those enumerated factors. Respondents then argue that there are unique circumstances which the
Commission should consider as mitigating factors. The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s
conclusion that the factors offered to mitigate the penalties imposed in this case are insufficient.

In his exceptions, Peter Cammarano asserts that he was under indictment and, upon
advice of his criminal attorney, he did not file the required reports until after he had successfully
negotiated a plea bargain and had been sentenced on his criminal actions. He suggests that those
circumstances should be considered a mitigating factor in imposing late-filing penalties. He
asserts, “Clearly, the admissions made in the subsequently-filed ELEC reports with respect to the
Dwek contributions would have had a material impact on the federal criminal case and could
have jeopardized--or maybe even doomed--the plea bargain that was eventually struck.”
(Cammarano exceptions Pg 3;L 16-19) Although the Commission understands Respondent’s
rationale for not filing timely, we reject the argument that this should be considered a mitigating
factor. Respondent admits that he knew the law required him to file accurate reports timely, yet
he did not. That he made that conscious choice with the advice of counsel while under the threat
of (and indeed to avoid) criminal conviction does not excuse the violation or mitigate the
penalty. To hold otherwise would be to create, in effect, a crime exception to the late-filing
requirements, something that the Legislature scarcely could have intended in enacting these
requirements, and that the Commission will therefore not countenance.

Cammarano also argues that since the reports were eventually filed before the hearing,
and because approximately 85% of the alleged deficiencies listed in the various counts have been

12
cured, that these factors should be considered and that no penalties should be imposed. There is
no support for this position. The penalties imposed are for late filing and/or the failure to
provide complete information.

Finally, Respondent Cammarano objects to the ALJ’s finding with respect to the Amato
contribution. While Mr. Cammarano in his testimony at the hearing attempted to establish that
this transaction was a contribution from both Andrew and Florence Amato, the ALJ rejected that
testimony and correctly found that the contribution was made solely by Florence Amato using
her personal check and that it exceeded the allowable contribution limit by $9,600.00. The
penalty assessed for this contribution is appropriate.

RESPONDENTS VINCENT ADDEO AND RAUL MORALES

Respondents Addeo and Morales argue they should not be held liable for the violations in
the “highly unusual circumstances of this case” where as first time candidates they were
affiliated for only 18 days with an experienced candidate on whom they relied as a practitioner of
election law who was arrested by federal authorities before completing any post-election reports.

We note that the 20-Day Post-Election Reports were due before Respondent Cammarano
was arrested. The fact remains that these candidates did affiliate for the purposes of the runoff
election with Respondent Cammarano and formed a Joint Candidate Committee (“JCC”) which
was then obligated to file the appropriate reports. As the Commission pointed out in its Final
Decision in ELEC v. Edwin Cintron, Tara Dower, Maritza Gonzalez and John Prococopio,
Agency Docket No. C-9 0614 19 04-G2012; C-9 0614 20 04-G2012; C-9 0614 21 04-G2012; C-
9 0614 22 04-G2012, all candidates and treasurers have the obligation to file reports and certify
to their accuracy, irrespective of whether they have chosen to have access to the campaign
depository and records. The Commission further found that a candidate’s lack of control over
bank records is not a mitigating factor under N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C. The fact that the
Respondents chose to rely upon Respondent Cammarano was a choice they made and does not
absolve them of their responsibility to comply with the law.

The second exception taken by Respondents Addeo and Morales is that they should not
be liable for any violations arising from the Dwek bribes and/or Amato loan because they had no
knowledge of these transactions. These Respondents correctly assert they should not be held
responsible for any contribution attributable to the May 12, 2009 election, and they have not
been. However, the May 8, 2009, May 19, 2009 and July 16, 2009 Dwek currency contributions

13
constitute currency contributions in excess of $200.00 and an excessive contribution by
$9,600.00 for the runoff election. Respondents cannot simply claim that because they did not
know about the Dwek contributions or that the contributions were actually bribes, that they
cannot be liable for the JCC’s acceptance of the currency contributions over $200.00, the excess
contribution of $9,600 or the failure of the JCC to timely report the contributions.

Respondents Addeo and Morales filed exceptions to the Amato loan claiming they had no
knowledge of the transaction and that the contribution was made after the election. The
Commission notes that the Respondents do not deny that the contribution was excessive, nor do
they deny that the contribution was deposited into the campaign account. It was thus undisputed
that the contribution was excessive. In Cintron, the Commission pointed out that the
Respondents were required to file a 20-Day Post-Election Report as well as Quarterly Reports
until the activities of the campaign are concluded and a Final Report is filed with the
Commission citing N.J.A.C. 19:25-8.2 and 19:25-8.3. For this reason Respondents were
responsible for any reportable activity whether before or after the election. The Commission
further pointed out that a candidate could not avoid liability for violations committed by the JCC
by simply ignoring his or her obligation to be aware of the committee’s activities or by asserting
that either the treasurer or one of the other candidate’s actions violated the statutes or regulations.
Any excessive contribution not refunded within 48 hours is a “knowing, willful and intentional
contribution.” The failure to return the excessive portion of the Amato contribution within 48
hours makes it a knowing violation by JCC for which Respondents Addeo and Morales are
responsible.

Respondents Addeo and Morales correctly assert that they are not liable for any
violations arising during the Cammarano Municipal Committee’s report period. The Petitioner
agrees with that proposition, which has resulted in the dismissal of the allegations in Count 1
which deal with contributions which arguably are attributable to the Cammarano Municipal
Committee for the May 12, 2009 election and Count 2 which deals with the same committee’s
expenditures for the May 12, 2009 election.

The allegations included in Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 are clearly not contributions attributable
to the Cammarano Municipal Committee but to the JCC for the runoff election. Respondents are
responsible for the filing violations set forth in those counts.

14
 The Respondents Addeo and Morales list the following items which they consider to be
mitigating circumstances:

1. Respondents’ reasonable reliance on Mr. Cammarano’s representation as an

election lawyer, experienced candidate and elected official that the campaign would handle all
reporting obligations.

2. Respondents did in fact sign filing on behalf of the campaign on every occasion
that such documents were presented to them for signature;

3. Respondents had no access to the TD Bank account records and other information
that would have allowed them to participate in the preparation and review of reports;

4. Other Respondents in this action did not observe the formalities required of the
Cammarano municipal committee at the conclusion of the municipal election by issuing a Final
Report and opening a new campaign depository on behalf of the Cammarano runoff committee;

5. Nearly all of the violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 and likely those alleged
in Count 5 as well --- are properly attributable to the Cammarano Municipal Committee of which
Messrs. Addeo and Morales were not members;

6. The fact that Respondents were not aware that Cammarano had taken the direct
bribes or deposited them in the TD Bank account;

7. The fact that the Respondents were unaware of the Amato loan;

8. The fact that if allocated between the municipal and runoff committees based
upon the date of their receipt, none of the direct bribes result in an excessive contribution to
either committee;

9. The fact that at all times Respondents have participated fully and in good faith in
these proceedings and expressed their willingness to sign such additional reports as are
warranted to complete the cure of any curable violations alleged in the complaint.

As discussed, the candidates were members of the JCC; as such, Respondents Addeo and
Morales had the obligation to file the appropriate reports. Lack of access or control over the
records including bank records does not absolve them of the requirements to comply with the
Statutes and Regulations even if other persons did not. This includes the requirement of opening
of a separate account on behalf of the JCC for the runoff election.

15
 Petitioner has recommended, and the Commission has agreed, to dismiss most of Count 1
and Count 2. This disposes of the contributions and expenditures attributable to the Cammarano
Municipal Committee for the initial election. None of the factors referenced above form the
basis for mitigating the penalties with respect to Respondents Addeo and Morales. The dismissal
of portions of Count 1 and 2, addresses numbers 5 and 8.

RESPONDENT ALICEA

As noted, Respondent Alicea filed exceptions late. Further, Alicea’s asserted mitigating
factors essentially mirror those raised in the exceptions by Respondents Addeo and Morales. For
these reasons, no separate discussion of Alicea’s exceptions is necessary.

RESPONDENT TRUGLIO

We first note that most of Count 1 and 2 have been dismissed as to all Respondents and
that Counts 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been dismissed as to Respondent Truglio.

Like the Respondent candidates, Respondent Truglio essentially argues that as treasurer
she was not involved in the collecting of the contributions or in making expenditures, and that
she did not have access to any of the campaign records including the bank records. She further
claims to have relied solely upon Respondent Cammarano to prepare and to file all of the
required reports.

As the Commission’s opinion in Cintron made clear, the Commission has never accepted
the proposition that a candidate’s or treasurer’s absence of control or access to the campaign
books, records and filings can be a mitigating factor. The Commission found that all candidates
and treasurers have the obligation to file reports and certify to their accuracy, irrespective of
whether they have chosen to have access to the campaign depository and records. The
Commission further found that it does not believe that a candidate’s lack of control over bank
records is a mitigating circumstance under N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.3C. Boiled down to their essence,
all of the Respondents, with the exception of Respondent Cammarano, claim that the lack of
access to the campaign depository and records should be a mitigating factor. It is not. Neither is
the fact that most of the information required to be filed was eventually filed a mitigating factor.
While that might be a mitigating factor if the Complaint charged a complete failure to file
reports, it is not a mitigating factor with respect to reports that are filed late or where incomplete
information is filed.

16
 It is inconsistent for Respondents Addeo, Morales, Alicea and Truglio to claim that most
of the information has now been filed and that they have cooperated fully in the proceedings yet
even to this date they have failed to certify and sign the required reports. While their lack of
access to the records might have been factually accurate at one time, that would not appear to be
true after the Complaint in this matter was filed on September 11, 2013 and after the Amended
R-1 – 20-Day Post-Election Report and Amended R-1 3rd Quarter Report were filed on January
12, 2015. After the Complaint was filed they had access to the joint campaign committee
depository and financial records through the discovery process.

Respondents Addeo, Morales and Alicea deny receipt of the original R-1 Reports filed by
Cammarano for the 20-Day Post-Election Report and the 3rd Quarter 2009 Report which
Cammarano claims he sent them. They do admit receiving the Amended Reports that were
provided to their counsel on January 12, 2015. Respondent Truglio concedes receipt of both the
original reports and the amended reports. In the Stipulation of Facts, although Respondents
Addeo, Morales and Alicea acknowledge receipt of the Amended 20-Day Post-Election Report
and the Amended 3rd Quarter Report by their counsel, Respondents Addeo and Morales assert
that they did not sign these amended reports “due to the pendency of this action and the
continuing discovery and fact finding herein.” Respondent Alicea offers no explanation for why
he did not sign the amended reports. Respondent Truglio asserts that she did not sign the
amended reports because she resigned as the Treasurer on July 29, 2009. As indicated supra, the
20-Day Post Election Report was due before Truglio resigned and thus she had the responsibility
to certify and sign that report.

In her exceptions filed with the Commission, after setting forth a litany of the sins of
Peter Cammarano, Lucy Truglio argues:

“given all of the foregoing, the Committee’s treasurer was unable to

certify further reports due to a lack of knowledge as to whether the
information presented to her was correct, and as a result, especially in
light of the events to date, an inability to certify under penalty of perjury
to their accuracy.” Truglio Exceptions P. 9; L17-22

Nowhere in the Stipulation of Facts or in the submissions of any counsel is it

demonstrated that any of the information contained in the Amended 20-Day Post-Election Report
or the Amended 3rd Quarter Report filed on January 12, 2015 certified to and signed by Peter
Cammarano was inaccurate. Indeed, all of the Respondents argue that, with the exception of
incomplete information with respect to certain donors, they have complied with the reporting
17
requirements. In their exceptions filed with the Commission as part of their arguments for
mitigation, Respondents Addeo, Morales and Alicea all specifically argue: “the fact that at all
times Respondents have participated fully and in good faith in these proceedings, and expressed
their willingness to sign such additional reports as are warranted to complete the cure of any
curable violations alleged in the Complaint.” (A & M Exceptions Mitigating Factors, P 18; L 13-
15). Despite these statements, these Respondents have not signed the amended reports which
would cure their violations for failure to certify and sign the 20-Day Post Election Report, the 3rd
Quarter Report and the Final Report. Neither do they submit any evidence that shows that the
amended reports and the Final Report submitted and certified to by Peter Cammarano are not
accurate.

The Commission considers the refusal to sign and certify reports to be the equivalent of a
failure to file reports. In this case, all of the Respondents have been given the benefit of being
charged with late filing of reports rather than as a failure to file reports. The failure to file
reports is considered by the Commission to be an extremely serious violation which would
normally result in the maximum penalty of $6,800.00 per report. In this case of first impression
for the Commission, given the totality of the unusual circumstances in this matter, the
Commission has determined in its discretion to impose a lesser penalty.

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY

The Opinion of the ALJ with respect to the issue of joint and several liability is not clear.
In its Opinion, the Court concluded that “Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the
penalties imposed.” (Opinion P 13) In its conclusion, the ALJ concluded that “the members of
the JCC are jointly and severally liable for all civil penalties accessed to the JCC for late,
missing, or incomplete filing requirements.” The ALJ further held that “Respondents are jointly
and severally liable for the penalties imposed for violations set forth in Counts 1 to 15 of the
Petition filed in the within matter.”

The Commission does not believe that joint and several liability is limited only to civil
penalties assessed to a candidate or treasurer for late, missing or incomplete filings. In this case
in addition to late, missing and incomplete filings Respondents are also jointly and severally
responsible for receipt of excessive contributions, receipt of excessive currency contributions and
failure to file 48 Hour Notices. To be clear, the Commission believes that with very limited

18
exceptions (i.e. – the failure to sign or certify reports) that all penalties are jointly and severally
applied to candidates and their treasurer.

Petitioner has argued that all Respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the
violations found for Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11. Petitioner argues Respondent candidates
Cammarano, Addeo, Morales and Alicea are jointly and severally liable for violations found for
Counts 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15. The Petitioner argues that Respondents Addeo, Alicea and
Morales are severally liable for the failure to certify the 20-Day Post-Election Report, the 3rd
Quarter Report and the Final Report and that Respondent Truglio is responsible severally for
failure to certify the 20-Day Post-Election Report.

Respondent Cammarano appears to agree with Petitioner insofar as he indicates that the
Decision of the ALJ fails to recognize that ELEC Rules and Regulations require individual
liability in some scenarios involved in this matter (i.e. – candidate’s refusal to date, sign and
certify reports). The ALJ recognized in his decision that the Commission found in New Jersey
Election Law Enforcement Commission vs. Condo, 93 N.J.A.R. 2d (ELE) 1 (1993) that the JCC
is responsible to satisfy the filing requirements and that any penalty is assessed against the JCC.
The candidates and treasurer are jointly and severally liable for paying the penalty assessed to
the Committee. See also, New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission v. Cintron.
Agency Docket No. C9 0614 19 04 6202; C-9-06140 20 04-C2012; C-9 6014 2104-62012; C-9
0614 22 04-C2012.

The Respondent candidates Addeo, Alicea, Morales and Truglio all argue that the
Commission is not required to impose joint and several liability upon the Respondents for
violations of the reporting requirements for contributions and expenditures. They premise this
notion on the claim that both the Office of Administrative Law and the Appellate Division have
seen fit to allocate penalties on a several basis where there is a disparate fault between the
parties. The Respondents argue that New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission v.
Zangari and Lombardi, OAL Dkt No. ELE 19257-15 supports their argument. In that case,
Judge Cookson did conclude that “there is not quite an equal or joint amount of responsibility in
this particular matter” and allocated the penalties disparately between the respondents and
provided for several rather than joint and several liability.

However, Judge Cookson applied the mitigating factors to the allocation of liability. In
contrast, in this case the ALJ found that aggravating and mitigating factors apply only to the

19
amount of the penalty and not the liability of the violators. The Commission agrees with the ALJ
that the aggravating and mitigating factors should apply “only to the amount of the penalty and
not the liability of violators.” The Commission has always allocated liability for penalty for a
late filing by a JCC jointly and severally among the candidates and the treasurer.

Further, we note that Judge Cookson’s decision in Zangari was deemed adopted by the
Commission by virtue of the fact that no action on the decision could be taken by the
Commission because it lacked sufficient Commissioners to form a quorum to act at the time.
Therefore, the Commission has never affirmed or adopted Judge Cookson’s holding or rationale.
The Commission here expressly rejects applying mitigation to the allocation of liability, and
reaffirms that when a joint committee files late reports listing contributions and expenditures, the
candidates and treasurer are jointly and severally liable for the penalties assessed against the
campaign committee.

Contrary to Respondents’ position, the ALJ correctly held that ELEC v. James, Dk. No.
ESX-C-131-11, Slip Opinion at 36 (N.J.Ch. Div. February 22, 2016) supports the imposition of a
joint and several penalty. In James, the Court specifically ordered that a candidate and treasurer
be held jointly and severally liable for the $25,000 civil penalty imposed for violations of the
Campaign Act. Id. While the Court did order restitution to be allocated severally, these
payments represented individual reimbursements for impermissible expenses, not penalties for
the Campaign Act violations. Rather than support Respondents’ arguments that the Commission
should allocate penalties severally, James affirms the Commission’s longstanding position that
penalties should be joint and several with the exception of the allocations for failure to certify
reports, which by their very nature must be individual penalties.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

There are a number of additional issues that the Commission wishes to address which
arose during the course of this matter while it was in the Office of Administrative Law. On
October 14, 2016, the ALJ entered an Order in which he incorrectly concluded “that a minimum
of three members of the four member Commission must vote in conformity in order for the
Commission to take any action.” The Commission has always maintained that the only action
that required an affirmative vote of three Commissioners is a Final Decision. All other actions of
the Commission may be taken by an affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum of the
Commission at the time the action is taken. The Commission’s view was affirmed by the

20
Appellate Division in New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission v. DeVincenzo, 451
N.J. Super. 554 (App. Div. 2017).

The record reflects that on or about August 30, 2016, Petitioner requested that this matter
be moved to the inactive list because at the time there was only one Commissioner and the
Commission would not be able to meet to consider an Initial Decision. The Commission
believes that it was an error for the Court to have denied Petitioner’s request and believes that the
rationale and analysis in support of its denial of the request was truncated and incorrect. The
Commission believes that New Jersey ELEC v. DeVincenzo clarified and settled the quorum
issue. The inability to draw a quorum is good cause to place a matter on the inactive list.

THEREFORE, the Commission adopts as its FINAL DECISION in this case, the
INITIAL DECISION of the Honorable Leland S. McGee, ALJ (Ret. on Recall) as modified
herein. Any exception not incorporated is rejected by the Commission.

THEREFORE, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:44A-22 and N.J.A.C. 19:25-17.1 et seq., the

Commission hereby REPRIMANDS all Respondents and imposes a penalty in the amounts as
follows:

Joint and several as to all Respondents $74,614.46, joint and several as to all
Respondent candidates an additional $3,715.20, severally as to Respondents Addeo,
Morales and Alicea an additional $5,100.00 and severally as to Respondent Truglio an
additional $1,700.00.

PAYMENT

Payment may be made by check or money order payable to “Treasurer, State of New Jersey,”
and should be submitted to:

New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission

P.O. Box 185
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0185

To insure proper credit, write the Final Decision number in the above heading on your check or
money order.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

PLEASE BE ADVISED that if you wish to appeal this Final Decision, you must file a notice of
appeal with the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division “within 45 days from the date of

21
service of the decision or notice of the action taken” pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 2:4-1(b).
If you have any questions about filing the notice of appeal, contact the Clerk’s Office of the New
Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division at (609) 292-4822.

NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW

ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

Date of Mailing: November 13, 2018 BY:______________________________

Eric H. Jaso, Chairman

Gail L. Shanker, Esq., (Hand-Delivered)

John W. Bartlett, Esq.

CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8444 4915
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Jennifer L. Credidio, Esq.

CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8444 4892
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Peter Cammarano
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8444 4908
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

William W. Northgrave, Esq.

CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8444 4922
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Louis A. Zayas, Esq.

CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7009 3410 0001 8444 4939
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

22