TOMS RIVER, N.J. — Two New Jersey public officials have been indicted on felony charges after investigators alleged they used their government positions to punish a private contractor caught in the middle of a political dispute.
According to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, the officials repeatedly voted against paying a vendor for work that had already been completed despite allegedly having no legitimate governmental reason to do so. Prosecutors also claim the pair later provided false testimony under oath in an attempt to justify their actions before a state grand jury.
Prosecutors Identify South Jersey Transportation Authority Commissioners
The indictment identifies the defendants as Christopher Milam, 45, vice chairman of the South Jersey Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners, and fellow commissioner Bryan Bush, 52, both of Sewell.
Each has been charged with second-degree official misconduct, second-degree conspiracy to commit official misconduct, and third-degree perjury following an investigation by the New Jersey Office of Public Integrity and Accountability.
- Prosecutors allege the officials blocked legitimate vendor payments.
- Authorities say the votes were politically motivated rather than based on contract performance.
- Both defendants are also accused of lying to a state grand jury during the investigation.
According to investigators, Milam and Bush voted during three SJTA board meetings in 2023 to reject payment of invoices submitted by a civil engineering firm, preventing the board from reaching the five votes required to approve payment.
Authorities allege the engineering company had already completed the work and that the invoices were valid.
Text Message Allegedly Revealed Political Motivation
The Attorney General’s Office alleges the payment dispute stemmed from an internal Democratic Party political feud involving a Mercer County commissioner employed by the engineering firm.
According to prosecutors, investigators recovered a February 8, 2023 text message allegedly sent by Milam to Bush stating, “They cut South Jersey in Mercer County so now we vote no.”
Investigators contend the message demonstrates the votes were intended as political retaliation rather than based on concerns about the company’s work or billing practices.
Former Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said public officials who misuse taxpayer resources for political retaliation will be held accountable one year ago when the indictiment was filed.
“As this investigation continues, today we are sending a clear message: No matter how connected or powerful you are, if there is evidence suggesting that you have used your position and taxpayer dollars for political retribution or gain, we will hold you accountable,” Platkin said.
Grand Jury Testimony Led to Additional Criminal Charges
Investigators allege Milam and Bush later testified before a state grand jury in March 2024, claiming they opposed the payments because of billing concerns, project issues, and alleged errors committed by the engineering firm.
Prosecutors contend those explanations were false because none of those concerns had been raised until after the votes began.
Officials also allege the delayed approvals caused unpaid invoices to accumulate for months despite the work having already been completed.
Similar Legal Dispute Pending in Toms River
While involving different legal claims, the indictment follows a similar factual theme alleged in a pending federal civil lawsuit filed by Shore Media against Toms River Council members Tom Nivison and David Ciccozzi.
A criminal complaint in this matter has also been filed with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.
According to that lawsuit, Shore Media township sued township officials who refused to authorize payment for advertising services not because of any dispute over the quality or performance of the contract, but because of disagreement with the company’s news coverage. The complaint alleges one council member stated, “It’s not the ads, it’s what they write.”
The NJOAG has not commented on its criminal investigation into the matter. The case alleges that the two council members abused their authority by using a township contract to silence a local media outlet’s First Amendment rights because they did not agree with their opinions and news.
What charges were filed against the two New Jersey officials?
Christopher Milam and Bryan Bush were each charged with second-degree official misconduct, second-degree conspiracy to commit official misconduct, and third-degree perjury.
Why do prosecutors say the payments were blocked?
According to the Attorney General’s Office, investigators allege the votes were cast to retaliate against an engineering firm’s employee who became involved in a Democratic Party political dispute, not because of any legitimate issues with the firm’s work.
How is this similar to the Toms River lawsuit?
Both cases involve allegations that public officials withheld payment to vendors for reasons unrelated to contract performance. The SJTA case is a criminal prosecution, while the Toms River dispute is a pending federal civil lawsuit. A criminal complaint has also been recorded with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.
Sources: New Jersey Office of the Attorney General | Office of Public Integrity and Accountability
Featured News
Jackson Mayor Sent “Bag of D’s”, Threatening Voicemails
Shore News Network
x
Police Blotter
Police Blotter
