Brick Superintendent Uszenski, 3 Others Indicted Again: Prosecutor

BRICK, NJ — An Ocean County grand jury has indicted Brick Township Superintendent Walter C. Uszenski and three others for a second time in connection with services provided to Uszenski's grandson, Ocean County Prosecutor Joseph D. Coronato announced Wednesday evening.

Uszenski, Andrew J. Morgan, the former interim director of special services for Brick public schools; Jacqueline Halsey, Uszenski’s daughter and the mother of the child, and Lorraine Morgan, the wife of Andrew J. Morgan, and former Brick schools' academic officer, all were indicted again on Wednesday, Coronato said in a news release.

Charges against Uszenski, Halsey and Andrew Morgan related to the services rendered to Halsey's son were thrown out by Ocean County Superior Court Judge Patricia B. Roe in late February.

>> READ MORE: Judge Throws Out Charges Against Brick Superintendent: Report

“It is the intention of my office to pursue this case," Coronato said. "This case represents a serious breach of the public trust. We have carefully reviewed the Court’s decision, which resulted in the dismissal of a prior indictment. We are mindful of our legal responsibilities and obligations. The matter has been presented to another grand jury, which after evaluation of the evidence presented, returned this new indictment.”

Joseph Benedict, Uszenski's attorney, on Thursday called the new indictment "frivolous."

"I don't think a jury is going to find any merit in this," Benedict said. "Ocne you know the facts, (you see) the claim is just frivolous. You can make anything seem nefarious."

"I think this is just a cover-your-ass motiviation behind this indictment," Benedict said.

The indictment charges Uszenski, Andrew Morgan and Halsey with second-degree official misconduct for engaging in a course of conduct that resulted in the creation and implementation of a fraudulent purported Individualized Education Program for Mrs. Halsey’s then preschool-aged child; the provision of illegal and improper in-home counseling services for the child at public expense and transportation expenses beyond that to which the child was entitled, the prosecutor's office said. They also are charged with theft by deception, the prosecutor's office said.

Lorraine Morgan is charged with third-degree official misconduct in connection with the approval of payment to a school district employee for providing in-home counseling services to the superintendent’s grandson, in her official capacity as the district’s academic officer, the prosecutor's office said.

Uszenski and the others originally were indicted in September 2015 on similar charges. But after more than a year of back-and-forth, the indictments were thrown out by Roe, who said the prosecutor's office failed to present information to the grand jury that was exculpatory.

>> READ MORE: Brick Superintendent, Three Others Indicted In Day Care Scheme

In the wake of Roe's ruling, the Ocean County prosecutor's office had two options: appeal the ruling, which they had 45 days to do so, or seek new indictments. The appeal process could have dragged on for months. The prosecutor's office made its intent to move forward with the case clear from the day Roe issued her opinion.

In April, Uszenski and Halsey sent a tort claim notice notice to the district, the prosecutor's office and Brick Township of intent to sue in the wake of the dismissed indictment, prompting some Brick residents to urge the Board of Education to reinstate Uszenski as superintendent. Uszenski has been suspended since his May 7, 2015 arrest and suspended without pay since the Sept. 28, 2015 indictment.

>> READ MORE: Brick Residents Urge School Board To Reinstate Superintendent

Additionally, the indictment charges Walter Uszenski with second-degree official misconduct for failing, as superintendent, to properly investigate Andrew J. Morgan’s prior employment history before recommending Andrew Morgan to the Brick Board of Education for employment as the interim manager of special education, the prosecutor's office said.

Andrew Morgan was indicted on two separate counts of false swearing: one, for denying he had been previously convicted of an offense involving the possession or sale of a controlled dangerous substance and two, for certifying on his “Brick Township Public Schools Online Application” that he had never been arrested, charged or convicted of a criminal offense; and that he had never failed to be rehired, or never had been asked to resign a position, or had never resigned to avoid termination, or never had been
terminated from previous employment. False swearing is a fourth-degree crime.

Those charges stem from a 1990 conviction of Morgan, who then worked for the Canarsie, N.Y., school district, on charges of selling cocaine on five occasions, in amounts ranging from a half-ounce to more than 3 ounces, to undercover detectives assigned to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s investigation unit, according to a report in the New York Times.

Morgan did not report that conviction and those charges on his application. According to an investigator with the state Department of Education, Morgan's record in the state database had a notation that he was approved to work in a school district.

>> READ MORE: Ex-Brick Administrator Had OK To Work Despite Drug Arrest, Investigator Says

Coronato's office said Uszenski and Andrew Morgan are charged with third-degree theft by deception between June 18, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2013, "for creating the false impression that Andrew Morgan had truthfully set forth his employment and criminal histories on his employment application and was qualified to be appointed to the position of Interim Manager and/or Director of Special Services."

Additionally, Coronato's office said, the indictment includes the following charges:

Uszenski and Andrew Morgan, on second-degree official misconduct for falsely stating that Andrew Morgan, who at the time was an employee of the Brick school district, was not the subject of a criminal arrest, charge or conviction, knowing that Andrew Morgan’s employment with the district was subject to termination for such a misrepresentation.

Uszenski on a charge of second-degree official misconduct for failing to conduct any investigation into whether Andrew Morgan had misrepresented his prior criminal history and whether Andrew Morgan’s employment with the district was subject to termination before Andrew Morgan resigned his position.

Coronato said Uszenski is charged with engaging in a pattern of official misconduct as superintendent of the Brick public school district, committing the five acts of official misconduct:

1. He failed to properly investigate the prior employment history of Andrew Morgan and did represent Andrew Morgan to be qualified for appointment to the position of Interim Manager and then Interim Director of Special Services, resulting in Andrew Morgan’s appointment by the Brick Board of Education to that position;
2. Knowing that Andrew Morgan’s employment with the Board of Education was subject to termination, he did falsely assert that Andrew Morgan was not the subject of a criminal arrest, charge or conviction;
3. He "illegally and fraudulently" effectuated and approved a purported Individualized Education Program for his grandson which allowed his grandson to attend a private day care facility at public expense and to receive transportation benefits greater than those to which the child was entitled;
4. He "knowingly failed to initiate the necessary and appropriate investigation into whether Andrew Morgan had misrepresented his prior criminal and employment history, and whether Andrew Morgan was subject to termination, but rather did knowingly allow Andrew Morgan to resign his position without initiating or conducting any investigation;"
5. He did participate in a fraudulent scheme to provide his grandson with in-home counseling services at Brick school district expense.

Andrew Morgan is also charged with engaging in a pattern of official misconduct, Coronato said, citing the folowing actions:

1. He did illegally and fraudulently orchestrate, engineer, and effectuate a purported Individualized Education Program for Uszenski’s grandson, which improperly and unlawfully allowed the child to attend a private day care at public expense from July 2013 through June 2014 and to receive transportation expenses greater than those to which the child was entitled;
2. Knowing that his employment with the Board of Education was subject to termination, he did falsely assert that he was not the subject of a criminal arrest, charge and/or conviction;
3. Knowingly "did effectuate and participate in a fraudulent scheme to provide Walter Uszenski’s grandson with in-home counseling services at the expense of the Brick school district."

Photo by Karen Wall

Editor's note: This article was updated with comment from Joseph Benedict, Walter Uszenski's attorney, on June 22, 2017