December 13, 2019

Hon. Gurbir S. Grewal,

Office of Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 080
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0080
Dear Attorney General Grewal:
Thank you for your announcement that the Office of Attorney General and Division of State
Police will review the events surrounding my removal from the November 18, 2019 Senate
Select Committee on Economic Growth Strategies. As you know, this review is separate from
the review now underway by the State Police Office of Professional Standards concerning the
behavior of the state troopers on November 18, including the decision to single me out for the
issuance of a disorderly persons summons on the basis of viewpoint, that my counsel has
previously raised with your office.

A considerable degree of attention to date has been focused on my physical removal from the
Committee room, whether I was targeted, and whether any non-member of the State Police
recommended or directed my removal. Your review of these questions is greatly appreciated.
It is clear that Senate Democrats and partisan staffers are attempting to narrow your investigation
to a singular Yes/No question of whether any Senate Democrats or their staff actually ordered
my physical removal that day. However, please be advised that New Jersey Working Families
Alliance (NJWFA), and residents and citizen activists who attended that hearing were equally, if
not more, troubled by restrictions on public access to Committee Room 4 that occurred before
and after my removal that day.
NJWFA respectfully requests your review not be limited to the narrow question of who ordered
my physical removal, and that you examine all the circumstances surrounding my removal that
day, as well as whether citizens attending a public Senate hearing that day received fair and
equal treatment free from harassment and exclusionary practices, both before and after my
removal.

Specifically:
• Selective and Discriminatory Admission to a Public Hearing: Prior to and during the
Senate hearing, NJWFA representatives observed sergeants-at-arms1 selectively

1
By “sergeants-at-arms,” I am referring to individuals in a guard-type uniform (not State Police)
who appeared to be involved in security in the committee room and overseeing committee room
access on November 18. I cannot confirm whether this is their official title, or who employs or
supervises them, but trust that your office will be able to ascertain those facts.
 admitting certain citizens interested in attending the hearing, while turning others away.
Some attendees in union jackets were admitted, while several citizens – including
minority residents from Camden City and activists from Camden County – were
restricted from entering the hearing. NJWFA believes it is important to understand what
orders were given that day, and by whom, to the sergeants-at-arms.

• Unfounded and Erroneous Room Capacity Determinations: Shortly after 9 am, the
sergeants-at-arms determined the room to be “full” and communicated that the room was
at capacity— despite clear evidence that it was not. As stated on the sign by the door,
Committee Room 4 has capacity of just under 400. At that time, an informal headcount
determined the room was at approximately half capacity. This decision was also taken
despite the fact that Committee Room 4 has fit a larger number of attendees in past
hearings and has fit larger numbers of attendees in hearings since then. One of the
sergeants-at-arms, when asked, was unable to state what the capacity was in the room that
led to the determination it was “full.” Photos posted on social media from a committee
hearing just last Thursday, December 5, in Room 4 show there were many more citizens
allowed in that hearing compared to the Norcross hearing, something which again
happened yesterday, on December 12, for a hearing that began at noon. We believe it is
important to understand what instructions on room capacity were made that day or given
that day (and by whom) to the sergeant-at-arms.

• Warnings by Senate Staff: The Executive Director of the Senate Majority Office, Kevin
Drennan, prior to the hearing, communicated to me, when I asked about this arbitrary
judgement on capacity, something to the effect of: “We knew you were coming, Sue
Altman, and what I say goes in this room. This is my space.” NJWFA believes it is
important to understand what exactly the Executive Director meant by these remarks. He
said this in front of multiple witnesses.

• Realistic Accommodations were Not Made for Public Citizens Denied Entrance: A
handful of reserved seats where unfilled during the entire duration of the hearing. This
was despite the fact that a handful of interested citizens – mostly, to my knowledge, from
the City of Camden – waited outside the Committee Room 4 doors. NJWFA believes it is
important to understand whether reserving unfilled seats for the entirety of a committee
hearing, while other citizens were relegated to standing or being excluded from the room
altogether was unique to the November 18 hearing.

• Unique Room Configurations and Arbitrary Restrictions Placed on Access: I

observed that people were prevented from standing on the entrance side of the committee
room, despite this space being generally available for standing room for other hearings.
Ropes were in place to restrict space, which was seemingly unique to the November 18
hearing. Later, the sergeants-at-arms permitted supporters of George Norcross to stand in
the same roped-off area, giving them access to space in Committee Room 4 that members
of the public were excluded from. The people who stood there during the hearing were
 employees of the Cooper Hospital Foundation, Cooper’s Ferry, the MWW public
relations firm, and others. Further, we observed the large iron doors at the side of the
hearing room were shut (it took multiple men to move the heavy doors) before the start of
George Norcross’s testimony, when protests outside were going on. Individuals
employed at the State House reported that they had not seen those doors closed in
decades- they didn’t even know it was possible to close those doors. NJWFA believes it
is important to understand whether this was unique to the 11/18 hearing.

NJWFA believes it is important to understand whether Mr. Norcross and his supporters
received unique treatment and whether he or any of his associates coordinated with
members of the Senate, the Senate staff, State Police, the sergeants-at-arms or others prior
to the 11/18 hearing, including around the committee’s substantive or procedural plans.

As the Star Ledger noted in its editorial this week:

[P]erhaps the AG should initiate a separate probe [from the OPS investigation], just
focused on the question of political meddling at this hearing. The point is that the public
must know what happened.

Altman also says some Camden residents were told when they arrived that the Statehouse
hearing room was full when it was “demonstrably not full, there were chairs that were
empty and there was standing room.” Was that discrimination?

We were extraordinarily pleased and grateful to read on NJ.com this week that your said that
your “office will also address related concerns raised by advocates about what is allowed at the
Statehouse.”
I would greatly appreciate your undertaking an investigation of these issues, some of which
appear to be unprecedented.
With deep appreciation,

Sue Altman
State Director, New Jersey Working Families