By Daniel Beckelman

Senator Loretta Weinberg claims she’s the voice of reform in county and state governments, where she says transparency is lacking. However, lately Weinberg is beginning to sound like a moralistic preacher whose practices don’t mirror their words.

This year, Weinberg’s fortress of ethical impunity developed structural cracks.  

Weinberg started off the year by nominating a judicial appointee whose ethics over billing a client were seriously questioned by a judge. Then, after cutting a deal to avoid a challenge from Englewood’s ambitious Democratic Mayor, Michael Wildes, Weinberg reneged and ran a slate called the “Real Bergen Democrats.” Weinberg’s candidates were swamped countywide (and in her district), exposing that the Senator’s message was weak and she had little influence beyond herself the 37th.

Although Republicans were hapless in their race against Weinberg and her two running mates, Joe Ferriero (in what had to be payback) and the GOP both piled on Weinberg. They exposed that she took money from the big-tobacco and healthcare industries, groups that her supporters often rail against, and questioned her running mates hypocrisy.

Gordon Johnson had “LaRouchegate” and was called on the carpet for running against dual office holding while dual office holding. And Valerie Huttle was dragged down by her husband’s Pay-to-Play law firm while running against Pay-to-Play.

Her campaign strategy also backfired when allegations of Democratic patronage at the Bergen County Improvement Authority and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority did not stick, and Ferriero continued to highlight Weinberg’s taking so much Clean Elections money as further hypocrisy in a “safe district.”

Campaign professionals believe that if Weinberg was in a competitive district her campaign would have been in trouble. Weinberg’s normally aggressive voice became muted in the face of the onslaught.

After it was all over, Weinberg was loudly booed when she made an appearance at the BCDO victory party on election night. Since Weinberg continues to dig herself into a deeper hole within the Bergen Democratic Party.

Her vote for South Jersey’s Steve Sweeney over Bergen’s favorite son, Paul Sarlo, for Senate Majority Leader has hardened the vast majority of the Bergen Democratic Organization’s rank-and-file against her, strengthening Ferriero.  Weinberg cutting the Sweeney deal with the Camden Democratic Organization – which is even more questionable than Bergen’s – has resulted in Democratic loyalists referring to Weinberg as “Grandma Norcross”, as a mocking reference to her portraying herself as a kindly grandmother while cutting backroom deals with Camden Democratic Boss George Norcross.  

Weinberg now controls less than half of the Party Organization in her district and nothing beyond.

This week, Weinberg flip-flopped on the re-nomination of County Prosecutor John Molinelli which led even The Record, a newspaper that favors Weinberg, to editorialize her actions are not so kosher.

What is not reported in the mainstream press is that Weinberg joined with outgoing GOP State Senator Hank McNamara in using her Senatorial courtesy to block Molinelli’s re-nomination, possibly because Weinberg (unofficially of course) did not like the way the prosecutor handled inquires in Teaneck.  Some there claim that Weinberg wanted the prosecutor to go after her political opponents locally, and when Molinelli didn’t find legal merit to do so, Weinberg sought revenge.

This week, The Record ran a story reporting that Weinberg decided to back Molinelli based on a “deal” she cut with two seemingly trivial aspects of his office: 1) that Molinelli would de-politicize the hiring of highly coveted position of chief of detectives and, 2) that this chief would not have a side business.  Insiders charge that Weinberg is simply trying to save face so she can broker another deal, this one on judgeships.

Many in the know, on both sides of the isle, say that Weinberg’s motivations on Molinelli are the same as her motivations on her Sarlo vote: getting something. 

In this case, what is at stake are her judicial nominees who she wants approved before the lame duck Senate session ends in January.  Specifically, insiders point to Attorney Mary Thurber, a Weinberg backer and one of her election lawyers who Weinberg wants appointed to the Superior Court.  Insiders believe Weinberg knows that Thurber will never be appointed if Weinberg continues to block Molinelli, so the so-called egregious issues that she claimed (but never explained on the record) in dragging Molinelli through the mud, somehow simply vanished for Weinberg when Thurber’s appointment was on the line nearing January.

Furthermore, many say Weinberg was attacking Molinelli to deflect attention because her nomination of Thurber was itself so tainted from the start.  Last winter, it was widely reported that Thurber’s billing to a client, nearly $1,000,000 in legal fees, shocked a respected Bergen Superior Court Judge, Peter Doyne, who responded: “I’ll state it on the record, I was, and I am, taken aback with regard to the fee.”  Weinberg later defended Thurber’s billing and glossed over the questions of amounts charged by releasing a strong statement of support, stating the billing was not illegal.

Last week, Inside Bergen repeatedly called Weinberg’s office seeking her side of the story. Weinberg’s Chief of Staff, Debbie Fransica, promised a return call from Weinberg by last Wednesday (it never came as of Friday, two days later). Fransica said she would not comment on Weinberg’s change of position.