To the Editor: Pinelands Commissioner Targeted for Pipeline Opposition

Here's a puzzle for the reader to ponder.

What happens when a dedicated Pinelands Commissioner, who takes his job to protect the Pinelands seriously, speaks out against the variance sought by SJ Gas to run a gas pipeline through the Pinelands?

Give up? Here's the answer: he finds himself faced with a demand that he recuse himself from the process of discussion or voting on the variance, in this case known as a "Memorandum of Agreement" or "MOA".

Why, you may ask? Well, this commissioner serves on the board of the Eastern Environmental Law Center (EELC). 

An employee of the EELC wrote to the Pinelands Commission asking that a meeting for public comment on the MOA be rescheduled since its advertised address was initially incorrect.

The request was later withdrawn, but that didn't stop the Attorney General from recommending (demanding) that said commissioner recuse himself due to a so-called a "conflict of interest," the nature of which was unstated.

The Commissioner announced this baffling and sad state of affairs at the December 13 Pinelands Commission meeting—the last day for the public to offer comment before the Pinelands Commissioners vote on the variance sought by SJ Gas.

This commissioner was perceived to be so dangerous that not one, but two deputy Attorneys General appeared at this unlucky Friday the 13th meeting to make sure he obeyed the "request"of the AG. 

Why was he thought to be a threat? Is it because he really presents a conflict of interest, or is it because he spoke out vociferously and rationally against the MOA at a Pinelands Commmission meeting on December 4, and offered instead that SJ Gas comply with a "waiver of strict compliance"—a vehicle requiring a higher standard of compliance than a Memorandum of Agreement.

Could it be because this commissioner made such a compelling case that other commissioners voiced their objections to the MOA as well? 

At this point, things began to look good for the Pinelands—a scary state of affairs for those who really want this pipeline. Why have other Commissioners who perhaps have even stronger connections that could be construed as conflicts of interest not been so charged?

One wonders what influence was brought to bear that precipitated this unfortunate action. But, in the face of this injustice, let's not forget the fate of the Pinelands hangs in the balance.

Temma Fishman
Medford Lakes, NJ