Garwood resident alleges cover-up in Ashbrook restoration, urges Union County transparency
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a Union County commissioners meeting a public commenter, Bruce Patterson of Garwood, alleged county mismanagement in the Ashbrook (Oatman) Swamp project, claimed a CME Associates contract rose 47% to $300,000, cited an alleged DEP probe and estimated $2–3 million in damage, and asked officials for a public accounting.
Bruce Patterson of Garwood used the public-comment portion of the Board of County Commissioners meeting to press the county for answers about the Ashbrook (Oatman) Swampproject and related contracts. Patterson alleged the county "increases CME's contract by 47% to $300,000" and said a public discovery in October 2024 revealed a "full blown mess" and a Department of Environmental Protection investigation he said has not been publicly resolved. "More money is being expensed through what started out as, the Oatman Swamp debacle," he told commissioners.
Patterson asked for greater transparency on multiple items tied to county spending and contracts. He urged the county prosecutor and the finance chair to "unravel just what the debacle cost the taxpayers," asked for the identity and destination of a $9,600 annual lease payment for the Feltville Village caretaker and a $7,800 lease for the Watchung stables caretaker, and called attention to a claimed $122,000 in donations from CME and a $36,000 total to commissioners' campaigns (as stated by the speaker).
The county did not provide a substantive answer on the record during the meeting. When the chair asked the county manager to address the questions, speakers named Dan Benier and Rachel Bechtold as the staff members expected to respond, but no detailed accounting or document was presented in the transcript.
Patterson also criticized a change in the commission's 2026 schedule and said fewer public meetings would force the public to review twice the number of resolutions in less time. He framed that change as a transparency and public-participation concern and urged the board to consider expanding public-comment opportunities or adjusting stipends.
No motion or formal investigation was launched during the meeting. The transcript records the speaker's allegations and the chair's request that staff respond, but contains no evidence of penalties, settlements, or a formal financial accounting being presented at that session. The county manager and staff were identified as the people expected to follow up.
Next steps: the transcript shows the meeting moved on to adopt a slate of resolutions and other business; the clerk recorded that staff were expected to address Patterson's questions but no follow-up record appears in this meeting's transcript.