CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Case to keep Fort Monmouth open delayed to July
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
The American Federation of Government Employees Local 1904 said the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decision to close Fort Monmouth was tainted when the Army ignored or suppressed estimates that the cost of the move would be more than twice what the commission said.
“What is at issue here is not simply a cost overrun. What occurred here was fraud,” said Eugene Lavergne, attorney for the AFGE.
Lavergne was seeking a hearing Wednesday in Trenton before U.S. District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, but filed his briefs too late, causing the case to be postponed until July 24.
Cooper ordered the case to be put on hold last year pending further BRAC actions, which allowed Lavergne to amend the suit to include the congressional testimony of Victor Ferlise, deputy to the commanding general for operations support.
Ferlise certified the cost of moving the base at $1.44 billion, not the $780 million that the BRAC commission was told. Afraid his original estimate would not be well-received, Ferlise said he asked for an independent audit of the figures but was ignored until after the decision was made.
“That all leads me to the conclusion that this was a predetermined conclusion on the part of the Army leadership that is unfounded and ill advised,” Ferlise said.
Some at Monmouth said the July hearing won’t stop the move.
“Although it’s fact that the BRAC is closing in on double the original cost and will easily exceed that here at Fort Monmouth, the general feeling is that the current administration will do what they want anyway,” said Mark Hendrickson, an employee at the base. “Most of us here think that any effort to keep Fort Monmouth alive is futile.”
msantoni@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
7:06 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Case to keep Fort Monmouth open delayed to July"
Report as inappropriate
12:03 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 19, 2008
re: "Case to keep Fort Monmouth open delayed to July"
Report as inappropriate
6:33 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008
re: "Planners envision high-tech work continuing at redeveloped fort"
Report as inappropriate
6:25 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 8, 2008
re: "First of Fort Monmouth job transfers to occur in summer"
Report as inappropriate
8:29 PM MST on Sun., Jan. 13, 2008
re: "NJ Legislature weighs in on Fort Monmouth closing, Maryland move"
Report as inappropriate
8:01 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
re: "NJ Legislature weighs in on Fort Monmouth closing, Maryland move"
Report as inappropriate
8:26 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 7, 2008
re: "NJ Legislature weighs in on Fort Monmouth closing, Maryland move"
Report as inappropriate
8:09 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 7, 2008
re: "NJ Legislature weighs in on Fort Monmouth closing, Maryland move"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
No matter how many court cases involving Ft Monmouth are to be executed, The Army is moving full speed ahead to implement BRAC. Some of the people in NJ are still in denial. 1/3 of the implementation has been completed. 200 families are moved to MD already. with the advanced team. The new C4ISR building is close to completion. Anyone who still thinks the Ft Monmouth has any hope of staying open, is in for a rude awakening.
3 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I feel bad for all the families that this move is affecting, the government can't make up it's mind and these peoples lives are basically in their hands, and the government does not care.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Well 1500 homes will be realized but not much else
4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This article is mistitled it should be called the beginning of breaking the Army set to start this summer. Once the country acknowledges this recession/depression and the Army loses the FCS program we'll all see just how broken the Army will be with all this.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
WHY!!?? Why does the small state of Maryland have so many military bases? If there is no military establishment there can't be any WARS--start making budget cuts now!!
13 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Nice better late then never, while the Army plans to move a couple hundred more people to Maryland, NJ legislators are still discussing whether its right or not? Where were they when they could have really done something to shore up Monmouth so it would have remained in the state. Or is this a lets look good in the papers like we're doing something. When they start talking about how they reduced road congestion in Jersey then they get an A for spinning
17 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Let the lifetime politicians foot the moving bill!!
14 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
why do you folks alays use the 1.5 billion dollar number? That too is a pentagon number and is dreadfully low the real number is likely to be twice that. This topic needs an independent audit to address the true costs not just the misleading crap the Pentagon is spouting. And while their at it they need to add the 16 billion dollar infrastructure bill that Maryland is trying to get the Feds to pay. also the 50 million dollars which was put into monmouth since 9-11 should be included as a sunk cost. When all is said and done this is a 20 billion dollar relocation which will never show any savings ever. The Pentagon just doesnt want to see those words in print. also why is nobody being charged with misappropriation of funds since the Army is using Mission dollars (dollars not meant for BRAC) to relocate people now. why does the Army get to do whatever it wants and answer to nobody?
9 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree