George Norcross probe: Emails show how a contractor fell out of favor with N.J. state agency that’s now under scrutiny

The invoice was unremarkable.

Like many others submitted before and after, the payment request to the South Jersey Transportation Authority — which operates the Atlantic City Expressway and Atlantic City Airport — detailed services rendered, project costs, and time sheets.

At first, the state agency’s response was as routine as the paperwork filed by Middletown, N.J.-based engineering firm T&M Associates. The authority’s engineering department head marked the $22,449.74 bill — for a garage replacement project — as “approved for payment” on Jan. 25, 2023, and it was added to a list of invoices to be considered for approval at the agency’s next board meeting, in February.

Then something unusual happened.

After the board secretary sent a summary of those bills to the agency’s commissioners, the following day, Feb. 8, she received an email from board vice chairman Christopher M. Milam: “Please make an official note that I will be voting NO on the below listed bills. Just for point of clarification it is all the bills for T&M Assoc.”

Twenty minutes later, the secretary received a nearly identical email from another commissioner, Bryan J. Bush, saying he, too, would vote against approving T&M’s bills, which totaled about $68,000 for more than a half-dozen different projects, including the garage maintenance.

The following week, the six commissioners in attendance voted unanimously to approve invoices submitted by nearly a dozen vendors — except T&M’s. The nine-member board continued to withhold payment until May, by which point the authority owed the contractor more than $165,000, records show.

The emails and invoices — among hundreds of documents obtained by The Inquirer through a public records request — offer a behind-the-scenes look at an episode that is now the subject of a grand jury investigation led by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.

Investigators fanned out across South Jersey on Valentine’s Day this year, interviewing SJTA officials, staff, and others, according to two sources familiar with the matter, revealing previously unreported details on the probe. Several have appeared before the state grand jury, including Milam and Bush, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Amid the investigation, SJTA hired a new chief of staff — former Cherry Hill Mayor Susan Shin Angulo — on April 1, an authority spokesperson said. She replaced David Zappariello, who was named communications director.

Prosecutors are looking into whether withholding payment was intended as retribution against a T&M executive who had clashed with South Jersey Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III over a local election, The Inquirer reported last month. Norcross isn’t specifically mentioned in any of the SJTA emails obtained by The Inquirer this month.

The records reveal the unusual way SJTA officials dealt with the decision to temporarily stop payments to T&M. Among the findings:

State Sen. Vince Polistina (R., Atlantic), who is also an engineer, said it would be troubling if T&M wasn’t given an explanation for the denial of payment. “That would tell me there were conversations we are unaware of that were going on behind the scenes that certainly should be looked at,” he said when told of The Inquirer’s findings.

SJTA staff declined to answer questions about the emails. Commissioner Milam said he was “not at liberty to discuss any of the matters about which you seek input from me.” Bush did not return messages seeking comment.

Norcross spokesperson Dan Fee also declined to comment. He previously told The Inquirer that insurance executive Norcross “is not in the civil engineering business, and he had nothing to do with T&M’s payments, which is why he hasn’t been contacted and what any fair investigation will quickly prove.”

Investigators are probing a series of events involving Norcross and a T&M executive that occurred shortly before the SJTA’s board voted to stop payments to the company, The Inquirer has previously reported.

In January 2023, Politico reported that the executive, John Cimino, had defied Norcross’ request at a December meeting that he decline to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary campaign for Mercer County executive — the head of county government. Norcross’ insurance firm, Conner Strong & Buckelew, subsequently dropped T&M as a client, Politico reported, and Norcross told the news organization that Cimino was a “bald-faced liar.” About the same time, Steve Ayscue, a political and corporate consultant close to Norcross, reportedly cut off business ties to T&M, as well, according to InsiderNJ. Ayscue was among the people visited by investigators earlier this year, sources said. He didn’t return a request for comment.

In early February 2023 SJTA commissioners Milam and Bush sent the emails to the board secretary about their plans to vote against T&M. Milam, who is chairman of a municipal Democratic organization, and labor leader Bush were both appointed to the SJTA in 2017 by outgoing Republican Gov. Chris Christie, with the help of then-Senate President Steve Sweeney (D., Gloucester), a close Norcross ally.

State officials were familiar with T&M: The firm had been working with SJTA for more than a decade by the time of the payment controversy. SJTA had signed a new four-year contract with the firm in July 2022 — seven months before the payment issue arose.

Under the airport consulting contract, T&M was to provide engineering work as well as help the authority review and monitor the work of other consultants. The agreement limited annual pay to a maximum of $3 million.

The SJTA has declined to say why payment to T&M was withheld. Sources close to the authority previously suggested to The Inquirer that the decision was rooted in issues with T&M’s work performance. They declined to identify any specific issues or discuss them in detail.

Agency officials did periodically express frustration with contractors overseen by T&M. For example, chief engineer Stephen M. Mazur wrote in January that it was “a bit disturbing” that one contractor, Weatherby, had taken so long to order a product.

In other instances, officials spoke positively about T&M personnel. Richard Tewksbury, a T&M manager, “is generally a good steward of the budget,” Mazur wrote to colleagues in December 2022, after T&M requested a change to a contract.

The emails show that SJTA officials told T&M to hold off on certain work after the two SJTA board members on Feb. 8 signaled their intention to halt the invoices — and that agency officials spoke about the matter privately with T&M’s Tewksbury.

“Based on our call yesterday, is this something we’re continuing to help with.” Tewksbury asked in a Feb. 10 email to chief engineer Mazur, regarding lighting for a parking lot. “Sit tight on that,” Mazur responded.

Tewksbury added that T&M was working on a proposal for a closet at the airport: “I assume we’re holding on that too …?” he asked Mazur. The SJTA official responded: “Yes. Hold off on that.”

A week later, the board officially denied payment to T&M. Hours after the Feb. 15 vote, Tewksbury wrote an email to Mazur and chief of field operations James G. Sullivan Jr.: “Based on our conversation last week, can you please just confirm that we will continue to be paid for the work we are continuing to perform?”

Sullivan responded the next day: “As you are aware, bills submitted by vendors are approved by the authority’s board of commissioners at the monthly board meeting. It is the anticipation of the administration of the authority that bills for work performed and services rendered by T&M will be approved by the board of commissioners.”

Reached by The Inquirer, Tewksbury said he couldn’t comment.

Documents show that at least some staffers weren’t aware of the reasons behind the vote.

“I don’t know what the issue is,” board secretary Cynthia Blasberg wrote hours after the vote, adding that the bills would likely be considered again in March.

But when the board next convened, on March 15, the commissioners again declined to approve T&M’s invoices, which now included requests for an additional $25,000. Shortly afterward, the board secretary followed up with vice chairman Milam to clarify whether he intended to oppose the same T&M bills he’d voted against the previous month or the new invoices as well.

“All T and M invoices,” Milam responded.

T&M followed up about that time, noting that several invoices had been pending for more than 90 days. An SJTA engineering manager, Bhushan Pathare, wrote to a colleague that he would advise T&M on the matter. Five minutes later, the chief engineer, Mazur, told Pathare to hold off: “Do not reach out to T&M on this.”

Mazur then relayed his message to the agency’s chief financial officer, Karen Davis, and Sullivan, the chief of field operations. “I’ve advised Bhushan not to respond to T&M on this,” Mazur wrote on March 20. “We don’t have a response for them.”

“Understood,” Sullivan responded. “Thank you.”

Three days later, a manager at the Atlantic City Airport inquired about a project T&M had been working on. It’s on hold “indefinitely,” SJTA’s Mazur responded, “as we are not permitted to give any new work to T&M and we have not identified another firm to do the architectural work as of yet.”

The airport manager noted that T&M had already been working on the project, “so would this not fall under ‘old’/ ‘not yet completed’ work?”

“No,” Mazur replied.

When T&M asked about invoices again in April, Mazur hinted at the sensitivity around the issue: “CONFIDENTIAL,” he began an email to colleagues. “... We will continue to review and process their invoices as we are required to. What happens with them after that is outside our control.”

Later that month, the SJTA board again denied payment to T&M.

The records do not say what prompted the agency to resume payments to T&M three months after the first vote to halt them.

On May 9, SJTA staff prepared a list of T&M invoices totaling $165,717.96 to be considered by the commissioners at their May 17 meeting, reflecting all the bills that had accrued amid the payment delay.

But days before the board’s next meeting, SJTA executive director Stephen F. Dougherty intervened, personally authorizing payment.

“Per this email, I am approving the bills for any payments due to T&M for services rendered,” he wrote to colleagues on May 12, five days before the next board meeting. “If there is anything further I need to do, please let me know, but let’s move forward.”

Chief financial officer Davis responded that the invoices would be paid the following Monday. Later that day, SJTA staff circulated a revised list of pending invoices for the board’s consideration. T&M’s then totaled just $16,424.41.

The board signed off on the outstanding bills two days later.