Ocean City Council pressed pause on a resolution that would quietly awarded no-bid contract to Polistina & Associates LLC, a planning and engineering firm headed by state Sen. Vincent Polistina.
The resolution was hidden inside the ‘consent agenda’. Watch Ocean City video from Feb 19.
Polistina’s firm wants to assist OC Council in evaluating proposals for the former Wonderland Amusement property on the Ocean City boardwalk.
The heated Council meeting on Feb 19, 2026, primarily focused on the controversial proposal to hire an outside professional planner for the city’s boardwalk redevelopment.
Key Takeaways
- Controversial Hiring Proposal: The council debated a resolution to hire Polistina and Associates LLC (owned by NJ State Senator Vince Polistina) as a professional planner to evaluate proposals for 600 Boardwalk.
- Lack of Transparency: Critics, including some council members and public speakers, raised concerns over the “non-fair and open” selection process. They noted there was no formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
- Shadow Planning Board: Some speakers feared that hiring outside experts was an attempt to create a “shadow planning board” to push through a “rehabilitation” designation that the actual planning board had already rejected.
- Concerns Over Taxpayer Expense: Hiring an outside firm is an unnecessary use of taxpayer funds, given that the city already has a professional planner and a knowledgeable planning board. A council member recommended withdrawing the resolution to hire the planner, citing a lack of clarity regarding the job’s scope and how the Polistina firm was selected.
How did Ocean City select Polistina’s firm for the proposed contract? Did OC consider other firms?
Potential hiring of NJ Senator Polistina will be discussed at the Ocean City Council March 12 meeting.
A consent agenda is a meeting management tool used to group routine, non-controversial items into a single agenda item that can be approved with one motion and one vote. It is designed to save time by avoiding individual debate on matters everyone already agrees on, such as previous meeting minutes, recurring financial reports, or committee appointments.
Key Risks of Consent Agenda:
Erosion of Oversight and Transparency: Approving items en masse can lead to a “rubber-stamping” culture where important details are overlooked. If the public or board members feel discussion is being bypassed for convenience, it can erode public trust.
Inadequate Review: The system relies on board members reviewing all materials in advance. If members fail to do this, they may inadvertently approve items with significant financial, legal, or reputational risks.
Strategic Hiding of Controversial Items: There is a risk that leadership might place sensitive or controversial topics—such as major budget changes or new policy initiatives—within the consent agenda to avoid difficult debate.
Vague Descriptions: If item descriptions are too brief or unclear, members may not realize an item requires closer scrutiny or should be “pulled” for separate discussion.
The Public should demand that our Senator disclose all no bid contracts that he, his firm or related parties secured during his term. Is he representing the best interest of his constituents? Or is he using his office and powers for his and his allies’ benefit?
Is this practice part of the reason government needs more taxes and fees from taxpayers? Is this practice part of the mistrust many have in our politicians?
I believe most would agree that it’s simply not what should expect from our leaders in public life. Term limits?
Dear Council President Crowley
I am writing to advocate for a clear and necessary standard of ethics regarding the development decisions currently facing Ocean City, specifically concerning the rehabilitation of 600 Boardwalk.
It is a baseline expectation of ethics law that every Councilperson, employee, and professional involved in this process publicly disclose any financial involvement with Mr. Mita, his family, or his companies. I have personally recused myself from matters involving applicants with whom I have done business for as little as a few hundred dollars. This is how the system is intended to work; when there is even a hint of a financial tie, one must step back to protect the integrity of the process and the public’s trust. If that is the standard for routine matters, it must certainly be the standard for multimillion-dollar development decisions that will shape our city for decades.
Ethics law is clear that financial conflicts must be disclosed and recusal is required when they exist. Crucially, this transparency must occur before a vote is taken. Waiting until after a decision is made to address surfacing conflicts undermines public confidence and risks invalidating the entire action, which could drag the city into avoidable legal and political fallout.
Public disclosure ensures the public’s right to a fair process, protects the integrity of the final decision, and shields officials from accusations of impropriety or violations of state ethics law. While some suggest that the Wonderland project is separate from the individuals driving it, one cannot ignore the potential for undisclosed financial ties or personal entanglements. To suggest otherwise only distracts from the core issue of whether this process is clean and transparent.
If Ocean City expects residents to trust this process, transparency must be the starting point rather than an option. Our community deserves a process it can trust, free from secrecy and selective disclosure.
Best regards,
John M
Ocean City New Jersey 08226
Formal Complaint and Request for Investigation – Possible Sunshine Law Violations and Unresolved Conflict‑of‑Interest Allegations (Complaint 25‑05)
John McGinnis
Ocean City NJ
Date: February 22, 2026
I am submitting this letter to request a formal investigation into two related matters involving the City of Ocean City, New Jersey:
1. A potential violation of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (Sunshine Law) by members of the Ocean City Council, and
2. The lack of resolution for Complaint 25‑05, filed over a year ago with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA), concerning possible conflicts of interest involving Mayor Jay Gillian, developer Eustace Mita, and City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson.
Ocean City residents and taxpayers like myself, are simply asking that these claims be validated or invalidated so the public can have confidence in the integrity of their local government.
1. Possible Sunshine Law Violation – Private Meeting With Developer
According to the Ocean City Sentinel (December 3, 2025), developer Eustace Mita publicly stated that multiple Ocean City officials met with him privately in mid‑September 2025, urging him not to sell the Wonderland Pier property.
The article reports:
> “Mita said after city officials met with him and some business representatives in mid‑September, urging him not to sell, Mita told them he would hold off for 60 days.”
>
> “Mita said city officials (whom he wouldn’t name) told him, ‘We think we misread the intent of Ocean City… Would you hang and see if we can get this done?’ And I said, ‘Yes.’”
Full article:
https://ocnjsentinel.com/last-minute-wonderland-effort-business-leaders-ask-city-council-to-act/#:~:text=However%2C%20he%20said%20after%20city,4%20meeting.
If four or more Council members participated directly or indirectly in these discussions — whether together or through serial communications — this would constitute a quorum discussing public business outside a publicly noticed meeting, which is prohibited under the Sunshine Law.
The subject matter of the meeting (zoning, redevelopment/rehabilitation designation, future Council action, and the developer’s intentions) is unquestionably public business that must be deliberated only in public.
I respectfully request that your offices determine:
– Which officials attended this meeting
– Whether a quorum was involved directly or through serial communication
– Whether the Mayor or City Solicitor participated or facilitated the discussions
– Whether any public notice, minutes, or documentation exist
2. Unresolved Conflict‑of‑Interest Allegations – Complaint 25‑05
On April 1, 2025, I submitted an amendment to Complaint 25‑05 to the DCA regarding potential conflicts of interest involving:
– Mayor Jay Gillian
– Developer Eustace Mita
– City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson
– Certain City Council members
The concerns include:
– A $1,000,000 secondary mortgage granted to Mayor Gillian on June 12, 2023 by the John Mita Trust, days after the Mayor purchased the property for $975,000.
– The mortgage agreement was written and filed by City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson, who has also performed private legal work for the Mayor while serving as City Solicitor.
– These relationships intersect directly with Mr. Mita’s expected application for a hotel project requiring zoning changes or Redevelopment/Rehabilitation designation, and potentially a tax abatement.
These facts raise legitimate questions about whether any official’s impartiality may be compromised.
This complaint has been pending for over a year without resolution. Ocean City residents deserve clarity. The public is not asking for any predetermined outcome — only that the allegations be investigated and resolved, one way or the other.
Request for Action
I respectfully request:
1. A formal investigation by the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office and the NJ Attorney General (OPIA) into the potential Sunshine Law violation described above.
2. That the DCA/Local Finance Board complete and issue findings on Complaint 25‑05, which has remained unresolved for more than a year.
3. Confirmation of whether the Mayor, City Solicitor, or any Council members engaged in conduct that may violate State ethics laws or the Open Public Meetings Act.
Conclusion
These matters involve zoning, redevelopment designation, potential PILOT arrangements, and significant financial implications for Ocean City taxpayers. Transparency is essential. The public simply seeks a clear determination — whether the allegations are substantiated or not — so trust in local government can be maintained.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide additional documentation or clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
John Glenn McGinnis