Tonight on NJPBS News we sit down with former Lieutenant Governor Dale Caldwell just a week after he resigned from office following findings of harassment and ethical violations.

Tonight we hear his side of the story as he continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Can he salvage his reputation and career?

Also tonight part two of our sit down interview with Governor Mikey Sherrill.

More hot button topics on the table including the fate of Delaney Hall, election integrity in our state and the governor's thoughts on New Jersey's most hotly contested race in the midterms.

Once again when it comes to President Trump the governor does not hold back.

Also money matters hanging over New Jersey public schools skyrocketing insurance rates plus talk of overhauling the very formula of how the state allocates funding to local districts.

Tonight a few math lessons and some perspective from a veteran New Jersey reporter covering education.

From Montclair State University you're watching NJPBS News with Rob Nelson.

Good evening I'm Rob Nelson and welcome to NJPBS News.

Tonight we begin with former Lieutenant Governor Dale Caldwell.

Just one week ago Caldwell was the second highest ranking official in New Jersey.

Then an independent investigation substantiated a finding of sexual harassment and two violations of state ethics rules.

Governor Mikey Sherrill called on him to step down and then he later resigned.

Caldwell denies the findings and says the investigation was deeply flawed.

Now he he's also been suspended from his pastoral duties while his church reviews a complaint based on concerns raised in that very same report.

Earlier today Caldwell was here to respond to those allegations.

Also the growing fallout and questions about what comes next.

Thank you sir for being here.

It is my honor to be here.

I know it has not been an easy few days for lots of reasons.

Let me start with the latest information because we learned more just yesterday about the situation involving the church.

For folks who don't know you were senior pastor in a Methodist Church Church Church in Plainfield.

Yes.

And that church now has suspended you from those duties.

They're doing an investigation and they say I want to get this right.

They received a complaint based on concerns raised in the report.

I just kind of want your general reaction to the suspension and what does that mean concerns raised in the report.

What detail do you know about what the church is looking into?

Well the bishop asked the district superintendent to send a letter based on the report.

They really based on the findings of the report.

And that's often standard practice.

What's not standard practice.

practices normally that's not public.

And so if the bishop released it or other things it's just an internal investigation.

It's not guilt.

It basically says it gives you this time for discernment.

So I'm a little troubled that this thing became public.

But it has nothing to do with anything that happened with the United Methodist person.

It has to do with the investigation.

And the problem is that the findings are flawed as you said.

And I'd love to talk about that.

So then okay and that's more than clarification.

This is not then a new behavior in your role as pastor.

This is someone in the church saying I saw the report.

I have concerns.

This is still linked to the same state investigation.

Nothing new.

Nothing new.

Nothing new.

Okay.

What then in broad strokes then what would you say were the core flaws in the report?

Well, it's very simple.

There's one issue in the report that is the basis of the finding for sexual harassment.

That one issue is staffer one that made it public was in the report 59 times, said I'd said something about, and I don't use that S word, but young women are looking for young S. Right.

I don't even say that stuff.

Right.

Well, in that car, the trooper was two feet away.

I was there.

I denied saying that emphatically.

The trooper said he didn't hear it either.

So, but the attorney, and this is really legal abuse, said, well, I discount the trooper's account.

I'm believing staffer one.

And so one of the things that they said they didn't find your denial credible.

Well, yeah, they buy denial.

But then they said that they they they didn't take the troopers denial of hearing that seriously either.

So this is a guy who was overseeing the state troopers.

And so when you get a traffic ticket and as trooper, you know, you know, does that mean his his testimony if he believed the troopers testimony, there is no sexual harassment.

OK, you know, and that's that's a problem I have is that they picked and chose chose what what what they believed and what they didn't believe, which is really not not legally appropriate.

You've given a lot of interviews since all of this happened.

So you're obviously in a mode now where you are fighting back and pushing back and letting people know you think this was a flawed investigation.

I'm just curious, is there any part that you own that you'd say, yes, I should not have done or said this thing?

Or is there any part or is this completely 100 percent?

No, no.

A couple of things that I said.

One, I did talk about executive presence and that's mentioned in the report.

One of the realities is I'm an alumni of the Wharton MBA program.

They now have a program called executive presence and leadership.

Staffer one said that executive presence referred to gender or attractiveness.

Nobody else agreed with that.

Yet that was in the report.

So if you go through the report, one of the other accusations is that I was trying to to pick up, if you will, staffer one's friend.

Right.

But they never they never interviewed the friend.

Yet that's in the report.

So what I'm saying is and again, I know the governor is not going to change her determination, but I'm just going on this just to really this could happen to anyone.

And that's what scares me.

Because you said in another interview and this struck me for some reason people wanted me out.

Politics is a nasty game.

Is your bottom line here that you think you're being politically targeted and it's more about politics than about the substance of your alleged behavior?

It's really more about because if you look at the report, you look at the report and just as I said, they're picking staffer one's perspective, even though no one is corroborating that.

Why do they want you out?

Well, I have no I have.

I have no idea.

I've really been if you saw some of the other reports, we really have had a tremendous eight months.

But you said for some reason people wanted me out.

Yeah, yeah.

Who and why?

I have no idea.

And it's up to them to their conscience and so on.

What I said in a sermon afterwards about lies as weapons is my goal is simply not to attack anyone or anything, but just to get the truth out.

That's the only reason I'm here is just to get the facts out.

And that was striking to me because I think over the weekend you stepped down on a Friday and Sunday you were on the pulpit at that church.

We were talking about a minute ago.

And you gave a whole sermon about false accusations.

And you said this you recorded a saying it happens about false accusations.

It happens in politics.

It happens in government.

And yes, it happens in churches.

Yes.

Yes.

I read that differently last night because I said, well, you added in the end it happens in churches.

Yes.

Did you have a sense that something was going to happen in the church that would put your position as pastor in jeopardy when you said that was something bubbling up at the time?

Yeah.

Nothing was bubbling up at the time, but I've seen this before.

This is not a new new play.

And typically and I'm surprised because this bishop happens to be African-American.

Typically, given the history of so many false accusations against African-Americans, you would think they would talk to me first.

And that's that's one of the big problems here that I have with this whole process is I wasn't given a chance to look at the findings and at least make a comment before it went public.

Never had a chance.

I had a chance to look at it for about an hour.

Weren't looking for any comments or any feedback.

And I think we're all due due process.

We are Americans.

We're not Russians.

And so that was the other fee.

And also, initially, it went right to an attorney instead of an internal investigation by the Ethics Commission, which is normally what happens with an anonymous letter.

And so this this is why I say I was targeted, because the normal process wasn't followed.

And that's why I find it so striking that you believe obviously strongly you were targeted.

But I don't hear the same detail about the why and the who.

I can't.

I can't.

I have no idea.

I have no idea.

It could be because I've been very successful for eight months.

That becomes a threat to folks.

We traveled 30,000 miles.

We are business action center that I oversaw secretary of state has doing about 400 million dollars for the business community.

We had safe elections.

The tourism was record numbers.

So you look at my my record as secretary of state.

It's been been very good.

And as lieutenant governor, I've been in every county multiple times.

We put about 30,000 miles.

So sometimes in politics, you're doing well is sometimes a threat.

I don't think it's a threat to the governor.

I have great respect for the governor.

I would say, remember who brought you to the dance?

She she gave me this incredible opportunity.

The eight months were the best professional eight months I've ever had.

And and I'm I'm happy to move on and do other things.

Are you angry with her?

No, no, I'm not.

She's a good person.

She really is a good person.

And I got into this because I want their one point two million people, households who can't pay their bills.

You know, if we're able to move them to the middle class, we can reduce property taxes.

That has to be the focus of this administration.

If I stayed and I could have stayed, she couldn't fire me.

They'd have to impeach me.

And looking at that evidence, I don't think it would have happened.

I don't think I would have been impeached, but I didn't want to be a distraction.

That that this government is never about one individual.

Government is about the people of New Jersey.

And I took a vow to serve the people of New Jersey.

And by resigning, I continue to serve the people of New Jersey.

And I'm supporting this administration.

Thank you so much for giving us some time.

We really do appreciate it.

Dale Caldwell, thank you again, sir.

And you know, it's been a tough few weeks and you have a case to make.

And appreciate you taking time to make part of that case here today.

And you can watch our full interview on YouTube and also on NJPBS.org.

And Mr.

Caldwell got into a lot of interesting topics in the other parts of that interview, including major weaknesses that he found in the report and how he himself actually put his own report into AI.

We'll tell you what he said it told him back, which is really interesting.

Also, his flirting with the idea of possibly taking legal action against the state in light of what's happened.

We'll see how that goes.

So check it out on YouTube or online.

And you can stay with us right here because in just a few minutes, we'll have part two of our interview with Governor Mikey Sherrill, which she has to say about a host of other topics, including Delaney Hall, issues with New Jersey's voter rolls, the midterms, and her own political future.

We are about one month into the start of another school year, and there are plenty of financial pressure points facing public schools right now.

The School Employees Health Benefits Program Commission, for example, well, they just approved an average rate hike of 34 percent for its active employees and their dependents.

That move can impact tens of thousands of school employees across more than 200 New Jersey school systems.

And on top of that, the state education commissioner recently said that she's open to overhauling the complicated formula used to determine how much school systems get from the state.

Here to explain more, John Moody, co-founder and executive editor of New Jersey Spotlight.

That's a watchdog journalism group that has covered our state, its politics, and its policies for nearly 20 years.

And you yourself, a longtime education reporter.

So you understand not just the headline, but the history that led up to the headline.

So it's always a pleasure to talk to you.

School funding, I know, isn't the sexiest topic on the news, but it's profoundly important.

I got two boys in public school.

I care about this stuff.

Why do you feel like there is some kind of financial, some strong financial undercurrents going on throughout public schools right now in Jersey, particularly that formula that state uses?

Yeah, I mean, New Jersey has a long, long history of debating school funding, literally going back 50 years, where the state Supreme Court began to hear cases dealing with the poorest districts.

And so they've been going back and forth on how to do that, where there's been literally 20, 30 case rulings on it over the years.

And it's led to a lot of very progressive things in this state where the urban district, especially urban districts, have finally gotten at least close to what is entitled to those children.

Now, so there's a long, you know, long history of arguing about the formula that also had to be approved by the Supreme Court.

Right, right.

So any changes to that formula are going to face potentially some challenge in courts.

Well, that's why it was a dramatic headline that the education, pardon me, commissioner here said she would at least, you know, supports the idea of an overhaul or at least will look into it.

But have you heard that before to have any of the talk and study and go nowhere?

Yeah.

And developing the formula was a lengthy, lengthy process.

They all came back over the summer at hearings and they brought in experts from, you know, throughout the country to talk about what is the right amount of money that should be should be going to all districts.

And that was part of it as well as if this if these changes were going to happen for urban districts, suburban legislators also wanted to be sure that their districts were were receiving their due.

And so those numbers haven't changed, you know, for more than a decade because it's so complicated.

And, you know, you're just you're hitting up, you know, touch points for virtually every legislator.

Obviously, Governor Sherrill has been with us this week and was asked directly this this question by some podcasters here in Montclair.

I want to pause here and run that soundbite from Governor Sherrill about this very issue, the funding formula.

Take a listen.

We have a fantastic education commissioner.

And one of the first charges I gave her was really to rethink the school funding formula because it impacts so much.

And when she came to really determine how to best do that, there was a real lack of metrics and information.

So what she's putting together right now and I've already seen that the prototype is a database so that every town can look at where the money is being spent.

And it's different by each town.

How much is being spent on students, administrative fees, extracurriculars, et cetera.

And in that way, start to see where the money is going.

But then also some of the metrics.

So that's what the governor said yesterday.

What's your read on that?

Yeah, I heard it.

I was in the room when she said it.

And it's, I mean, she's studying it.

I mean, it was another version of, I mean, she speaks to, you know, really determining what districts really need, how well they perform, you know, trying to match the winners, you know, or determine the winners and sinners.

And, you know, not necessarily winners and sinners, but the winners and losers in the formula.

And it sounds familiar.

I mean, it's something that the state should be doing anyway.

In fact, under the law, they're required to be doing it.

But like many things, things slip through.

But not a major update.

You said more than a decade.

So it seems.

It's been a long time.

Like time.

Yeah, it's been a long time since they've done that.

And all while enormous challenges being faced by these districts.

And the other headline that I found, like, wow, was that 34% premium hike on average for folks in the school employees' state health care plan, which covers a couple hundred thousand people in the state, including retirees, independents.

This would affect active employees.

That's a huge increase and speaks to a national health care problem.

But that's a real burden.

What's your read on where that's going?

Well, what is important on that is there is separate state law that caps how much individual districts would have to pay that increase.

I'm sorry, individual teachers and retirees would pay.

The districts have to pick up the rest of it.

And that's why people are concerned, because does that lead to cuts in the classroom?

And there's no doubt.

And they've been going through, even with increases in overall aid, there are more than 100 districts that are actually seeing some cuts in their aid because of that formula that, you know, needs updating.

And so they're already facing a lot of pressure.

And class sizes are going up.

There's some districts, including, you know, right here in Montclair, that are seeing multimillion dollar gaps that is clearly going to lead to some cuts and already has led to property tax increases.

So schools were already strained.

And certainly great needs in all kinds of areas.

And so this on top of it is like boom.

And it's really having an impact or will certainly in the coming months.

All right, again, John Mooney, New Jersey Spotlight co-founder and executive editor.

And you can check out njspotlightnews.org and on njpbs.org.

And if you haven't done it already, sign up for the New Jersey Spotlight newsletter.

Finally tonight, part two of our interview with New Jersey Governor Mikey Sherrill.

We sat down with the governor earlier this week and talked about a wide range of critical issues facing our state, including her ongoing search for the next lieutenant governor.

Speaking of hard, Delaney Hall, that's been in the news a lot for reasons.

I don't want to relitigate the decision to send in the state police, but just one question on that topic.

Do you still believe that facility should be closed?

And what is the legal pathway do you see forward to do such?

Yes, that facility should be closed.

I am very adamantly opposed to private detention facilities.

You've just come from the south.

You've probably seen how poorly they are run across our nation.

I've been opposed to them when I was a federal prosecutor.

I'm opposed to them now as governor.

There was a law in New Jersey that I supported.

I supported, you know, and joined an amicus brief.

Had the state joined the amicus brief saying, in support of the law we had in New Jersey, saying that we would not allow private detention facilities.

The court's found against us.

You still believe you have the power to close it?

Or could fight against us?

No, the court's found against us.

So, unfortunately, we don't have the power in that way.

But what we are doing now is I do believe we have the power to have health inspectors in there.

We are in court right now fighting to have full and unfettered access.

We've had some of our Department of Health personnel in there, but they didn't have unfettered access, as they should, to truly do their oversight.

I believe that legally we should have that.

We also are demanding documents because we have seen some deaths associated with Delaney Hall, and we want to see the documentation and what happened and what kind of care these people were being provided because we don't think it was adequate.

And we also have a civil rights investigation going on to the treatment of people inside Delaney Hall.

So, while I don't think we can, at the state level, simply shut down the federal facility, I do think that there are legal ways and legal pathways that we are utilizing now to demand that they treat people better, that we have oversight over that facility.

And should they not be able to do that, then I do think they should be shut down.

I remain convinced they should be shut down.

But the battle seems like it's shifting from I want closure to I want greater oversight.

That just may be the legal boundaries we're talking about here for now.

I would say the battle is, yes, to get closure.

And I keep suggesting to the administration it should be shut down and that they are not fulfilling their responsibilities.

We are using the courts to point that out.

Midterm season is upon us, as you well know.

Election integrity here in New Jersey has made a lot of headlines recently.

We know the situation here with the non-citizens who were mistakenly allowed to register to vote.

I'm just wondering, going into, ballots are already out, and going into midterms a few weeks from now in November, are you confident that those kind of mistakes will not happen in this cycle?

Can you guarantee it?

We have taken every person who is registered solely due to the serious computer malfunction off of the rolls at the state level.

Anyone that needed further investigation, we have sent to the counties to do that with the direction that they do that before they send out their ballots.

So, yes, the ballots have gone out.

So, we've made sure that people who should not be on the rolls are not on the rolls, but that people who should be on the rolls, who should have a right to vote, were not cleared off the rolls as well.

And there's initial numbers that came out.

6,600 registered, less than 400 actually voted.

That was for a one-year period.

Do you expect the numbers upon further investigation to go higher than that, or do you consider that part of the matter kind of closed?

And we're moving on and fixing things with the new vendor?

We are moving on and fixing things.

The current ongoing investigation is really into how this happened, why this did not come to light until quite recently, as it happened under the previous administration, because we want to ensure that people are held accountable and nothing like this happens again.

Got it.

Has it changed your support for automatic voter registration when people go to MVC for one matter or another?

Are you still in favor of that, or should we look at the system of automatic registration?

Voter registration writ large.

I still am in favor of that.

It is the most convenient and obvious way to get registered to vote.

You go in there with all your paperwork.

Oftentimes you go there when you are a new citizen of our state.

It makes a lot of sense to do that.

And the idea that somehow as a state we couldn't run a safe and secure voter registration program at the MVC is ludicrous to me.

That is why we're holding an investigation to understand what the failure was, because that's unacceptable.

And at the same time, with the new vendor, we are taking a very hard look at all of the checks in place that we intend to have to ensure that we run a safe and secure voter registration system.

I know that, speaking of politics, you see what's happening in District 7.

That's probably Jersey's hottest race right now.

Everyone's kind of wondering what's happening there.

You've endorsed Spendant in the race, not surprisingly.

If she pulls it out and pulls off what will probably be labeled as an upset by the media, what do you think that says about the mood of New Jersey voters and perhaps the mood of the country?

Do you think she'll win?

I think she'll win.

I think New Jersey likes helicopter pilot moms.

And I think that's because people are fed up with anyone in public service who seems to think they're somehow entitled to that job and who aren't fighting for the people of New Jersey.

So to see Tom Kane Jr.

somehow suggest that the tariffs were a good idea, that the war in Iran was a good idea, here's somebody who just is afraid of the president and has no backbone.

And that's unacceptable in this state, especially because we have a president of the United States who is driving up cost on everyone all the time.

I mean, whether it is the war in Iran and the prices at the pump and the prices for diesel, which are raising the cost of everything in commerce, everything logistically, we're looking at milk going up by $20 across the country.

So we are seeing these huge cost increases or this tariff attack on Canada.

Canada is the largest trading partner with New Jersey.

So costs going up everywhere there.

It is disrupting people's lives.

And we have a whole agenda on saving you time and money.

It's cutting through permitting.

It's making sure that we are driving costs down so that you can get shovels in the ground more quickly and lower costs for people and build homes.

The president's going the opposite direction.

You are an incredibly vocal politician and governor.

I'm from New Jersey.

I'm from New Jersey, so of course I am.

We'll end on this note.

I know we're almost out of time.

Your PAC endorses candidates outside of New Jersey.

You are incredibly vocal in your opposition due to President Trump.

I've interviewed a lot of political leaders.

You do sound like someone who is actively carving a national profile.

Are you?

And have you considered, I know you'll say no, life beyond this governorship?

Because you do, particularly with Trump, talk like someone who smells some blood in the water politically and perhaps is looking down the road for what your next political chapter could and may be.

I am incredibly happy in New Jersey.

I just got out of Washington.

I intend to stay here.

I will tell you that we need Washington to perform, perform much better.

We need people down there who are fighters.

So we need the federal government to respond better.

And I am just unimpressed.

I remain unimpressed.

I even remain unimpressed with some of the longtime people who are there who aren't fighting hard enough for us, who have opportunities to use leverage in the Senate.

And they never seem quite to be able to understand that this isn't a time when you go in the Senate dining room and have a meal and hash out good policy.

This is a time when you fight because out here in the states we are bleeding money and we need people in D.C.

who are going to say no more to cutting back Medicaid and on the Affordable Care Act subsidies and who won't say a word about the war that we're in, what the president can't explain and can't get out of.

I mean, people are dying.

I have kids in service.

This is all unacceptable and the federal government is failing.

We're trying to get Senator Bucco on the show soon.

What question would you like him to answer publicly?

How he's going to get cast down for New Jersey.

All right.

Governor, thank you so much for giving us some time.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Sincerely.

Thank you so much.

Sincerely.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

That will do it for us tonight.

Thank you so much for watching NJPBS News on this special inaugural week as we broadcast from Montclair State University.

We will see you right back here on Monday.

Have a great weekend, Jersey.

We'll see you next time.

you