Rep. Lofink, in a brief interview, said, “I did not have anything to do with him getting that job.”

Filed in National by on December 2, 2007

Right.

Lofink is lying or stupid.*

PS. What a sucky job by the NJ’s CRIS BARRISH. Is John R. Henry implicated in Lofink’s crime? What the heck was he getting at? A reporter might have asked that question.

PS. All you GOP Minner haters who spare no opportunity to rake RAM over the coals – lets here your loudest braying now. Go fot it.

*Did Lofink say, “Hire my son.” ? Probably not.

Did the fact that Lofink is a state Rep mean that his son got the job instead of someone more qualified? Yes.

Did the fact that Lofink is a state rep keep this out of the News Journal for two months? Oh, Hell Yes.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    Does anyone know of an instance when the connected person didn’t get the job?

  2. I think the best upshot will be a push to get an anti-nepotism law into place this year.

  3. Anonomous says:

    In Delaware, nepotism is one thing, but the bigger problem is good’ol boy approaches and cronyism. The Delaware Way is too often, “You scratch my back, and I’ll get you a job”.

    What is the hiring process, and how can it be improved to protect the citizens against the unspoken/unwritten pressures put on public employees to hire the friends and hand out the favors for those in power? We need to change the culture of how this are “done” in Delaware.

  4. Brian says:

    Amen.

  5. Probably the same reason I sat on it; fear of being called a liar or sued. Wait…TNJ has millions for a defense. I have nothing. No excuse at all.

  6. jason330 says:

    BTW –

    If anyone has any explaination for why the NJ sat on this story for two months I’d be eager to he it.

  7. Al Mascitti says:

    Jason, how do you know they sat on it for two months? And why is it “sucky” that Henry’s son was named?

    Mike, the “millions” in TNJ legal funds you cite simply aren’t there. That’s why the then-editors backed down when Gordon & Freebery threatened to sue if they printed the story about Sherry’s rich benefactor. A lawsuit would have had no merit at all, in addition to being a PR disaster — in other words, there was no way in heaven, earth or hell that such a suit would have been filed. TNJ backed down not because it would have lost, but because they didn’t want to spend even the relatively small amount it would have taken to litigate.

    Of course, when I say the money “isn’t there,” I don’t mean it doesn’t exist — it’s just that any editor who incurs such an expense can kiss his career at Gannett goodbye. TNJ fills one function in the corporate scheme, and one function only — cash cow.

  8. ANNON II says:

    Join me in posting your favorite (not) nepotistee (sp.) This year mine is the womanizing, substance abusing, and rugby playing(former)Wilmington mayor Dan Frawley’s son works in the A.G.’s office (preping to become the city solictor no doubt).

    As to ‘sucky’…isn’t the Senator’s other son employed by the state too? If so, that is really SUCKY.

  9. jason330 says:

    And why is it “sucky” that Henry’s son was named?

    Not sucky that he was named – but sucky reporting that gave the impression that Henry was connected to the crime. When all along the only reason he was dragged in was due to some rule int he NJ that for “fairness” and balance when ever a Republican commits a crime you have to mention a Democrat.

    It was just stupid lazy dumbass reporting and editing. Par for the course really.

  10. Al Mascitti says:

    Funny, I never got that impression. It says right in the story that he wasn’t involved. And there’s no such rule at TNJ. I spent nearly five years editing stories on the city desk, so if it existed I’m pretty sure somebody would have clued me in.

  11. anon says:

    I had to read the article three times to figure out that Henry was not named in the scam. It was definitely some highly constrained writing.

  12. jason330 says:

    Al –

    I like you but you are full of it. Putting Henry in was a naked attempt by the NJ to soften the blow to Lofink. You can stop sucking up to Ron Williams now.

  13. jason330 says:

    BTW Al,

    If you want proof of that just check out the comments section of the NJ story.

    They are all about the “system” and nepotism and what a rotten place Delaware is. Nothing baout the crime and the Republican criminal who committed the crime.

    Mission accomplished Mr. Williams. Well played you toady motherfucker.

  14. There should be an anti nepotism policy and also a policy of once you are elected (state senate or house) you can’t take on a job which could be affected by your vote.

    One lobbyist told me each elected official is a franchise and all their family members are franchisees and to get things moved you have to support the franchisees to get support from the franchise.

  15. jason330 says:

    Whoa. I’ve never heard it all put in such stark terms befor.

  16. Brian says:

    Protack that is correct, will you stop that?

  17. Steve Newton says:

    How about some legislation that says at least quarterly every elected official must publicly report

    A) His/her salary from any position at an organization that is either funded by the state or receives state funds (whether or not that person actually receives a salary from state funds)

    B) The same information for all immediate family members (spouse, siblings, children)

    I feel this way just as I do about campaign finance–let people give what they want to give but put it all out in the open.

  18. jason330 says:

    Great suggestion. Incumbency is such a huge advantage and those reports would level the playing field.

  19. disbelief says:

    I think we’ve been misdirected quite successfully.

    The issue here is that a lot of money was stolen from the State; the nepotism stuff is a collateral issue, but is being used to draw attention away from theft of State money.

    Two reasons were given for the theft: “we had controls that they bypassed”, and “the scheme was complex”. The first reason is bullshit. In order for accounting controls to work, someone has to know about the controls and review the controls consistently. The controls are not put into evidence because that would make Cordrey and Wagner look like idiots. The second reason is bullshit. The scheme was not complex; there is simply no one watching the henhouse. The details of the scheme are not put into evidence because, again, the simplicity of the theft would make Cordrey look like an idiot for not catching it earlier, and not having controls in place and followed that would have prevented the theft.

    The article by Barrish was brilliant. It points everyone to an issue collateral to the theft (nepotism), taking attention away from the theft. The problem here is State officials who have no idea what they are doing and are ignoring their duties as responsible custodians for State goods and services.

    Well done, Mr. Barrish.

  20. disbelief says:

    Lofink is described in the article as handling about 20 escheat claims a month. That’s less than one per State work day. In addition, TNJ states that most of the work was done by an outside contractor. In addition, TNJ states that various temporary employees also helped process claims.

    So we have about 10 people handling less than one claim a day? And Lofink managed to fool them?

    Yeah.

    Contols over escheat claims:
    1) verify existence of claimant through phone call and address look-up
    2) supervisor of 1) authorizes check
    3) internal audit reviews checks every other month to verify that check was made out to claimant verified in 1), and reviews depositing account information printed on back of cancelled check.

    Fellow posters: the issue here is no controls, no one in charge who understands controls, and what looks like a $300,000 payroll to look at less than one claim per day. Yes, nepotism is an issue over these jobs that are essentially ‘no show’, but the nepotism issue is WAY overshadowed by simple, garden variety lack of management on the part of upper State management.

  21. disbelief says:

    The point above is that even in the absence of nepotism, any idiot could still steal money, or build a bridge to nowhere, or rape patients with little worry of being held accountable. The problem isn’t the State employee who may or may not be related to some one important; the issue is that those in charge are AWOL.

  22. Al Mascitti says:

    Ron Williams? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you mean Doug Williams, the city desk editor? SEriously, I just love it when people who’ve never set foot in a newspaper office tell me how it works. Get your head out of your ass before it swells any further. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and every time you say something about journalism you prove it.

  23. jason330 says:

    Al, I’ve been clear about Doug Williams being a fraud and a loser here long enough to know that it was Doug Williams. I slippd last night and if that gives you some kind of feeling of authority on this matter so be it.

    If you want to usew that slip to act like you are the man it speaks to the weakness of your argument.

  24. Dana Garrett says:

    “Putting Henry in was a naked attempt by the NJ to soften the blow to Lofink. You can stop sucking up to Ron Williams now.”

    Oh, I see your angle now. You wanted the focus to remain on the son of a REPUBLICAN legislator and was miffed because the article on nepotism in state government included the son of a Democratic legislator. LOL!!

  25. jason330 says:

    I don’t think I was being sneaky.