Breaking News: Public Records Expose Another Surrency Lie, Another Surrency Failure to Do His Job.

Freeholder Director:  Surrency’s Slanderous Accusations Aimed At County Employees “A New Low” (Millville) Public documents and emails have now exposed another revolting lie issued by Jack Surrency and his team of Cumberland County outsiders, causing many to now question his ethics and/or competence to serve as a Freeholder. “Today Jack took another unfortunate leap in his escalation of lies and baseless attacks against the hardworking men and women of Cumberland County,” said Freeholder Director Joe Derella.  “It is disheartening that I am now left to wonder if Jack is a man of such little character or is he just that incompetent as a Freeholder.” Derella’s statement was spurred by the latest fabrication issued by the Surrency team which attacked the integrity of Cumberland County employees.  According to Derella, this was a new low for Surrency. “What makes this lie and false accusation even more reprehensible is that Jack not only voted for the resolution to appropriate the funds he now accuses County employees of misusing, he was provided a full schedule and copy of the invoices that were paid,” stated Derella.  “So Jack either knew his press release was a flat out lie and allowed the slander to be sent out anyway, or Jack has not been paying attention to what he is voting on.” According to Cumberland County Democratic Chairman Steve Errickson, this has now been a recurring pattern in the Surrency campaign which is being managed by North Jersey operatives focused on thwarting the recent resurgence of Cumberland County. “Jack Surrency obviously does not believe in the intelligence and character of Cumberland County residents,” said Errickson.  “Jack has now made up stories about votes that have not happened, mailers that never existed and now he claims to have invoices that show over $300,000 in jail cleaning.  I challenge him to step forward and provide these receipts, because the public record shows Jack is once again just making things up.” A review of documents presents a timeline that clearly demonstrates that Surrency’s alternate facts do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.    --- On April 28th the Freeholder Board voted to appropriate $3 million to “meet certain extraordinary expenses to provide County services as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.”  Jack Surrency voted for this Resolution.
--- On May 26 another resolution was passed because “the County of Cumberland has incurred, urgent expenses in order to provide County services without significant disruption and to address matters related to public health, safety and welfare; and to “memorialize and ratify the emergency contacts entered into…” that “fell under the Special Emergency Appropriation.”  Included on this list was Holden Facility Services to “Disinfect ALL County Facilities (April and May) for $392,830.  Jack Surrency voted for this resolution.
--- Prior to the May 26th Resolution, the Freeholders were informed via email on April 30th,  May 4th, and on June 2nd  by County Administrator Kim Wood of the scheduled cleanings, documenting the day and building of the emergency cleaning.
--- The Freeholders were provided detailed invoices from Holden Facility Services which claimed the description of the service as “Disinfectant Services Performed Across ALL County Facilities identified in Proposal Dates 04/04/2020.”  Jack Surrency voted to pay those invoices. 
“While Jack’s campaign team may have learned to be fast and loose with the truth while working in Bayonne or falsifying petitions in Camden County, this is Cumberland County where we believe that integrity and a person’s character matter,” said Errickson.   “Maybe if Jack spent more time here instead of in Cape May County lobbying for votes for his failed congressional campaign, he would have known what was happening, what he was voting on, and what was happening in the County.  Now, he is stuck having to rely on such pathetic campaign tactics.  He at the least could have read his County email, I mean the residents are paying him to work.”
323 views0 comments