Union City’s Hires an Inspector General & The “Scandal-Free” Myth: The Record David Wildstein Didn’t Tell Readers

The New Jersey Globe article announcing Union City’s new inspector general reads less like a neutral news report and more like a piece of political advocacy. Rather than examining Union City’s long and well-documented history of federal scrutiny, litigation, and controversy, the article leans heavily into uncritical praise of Mayor Brian Stack, including the demonstrably inaccurate claim that he has governed a city “devoid of scandal” since 2000.

At the same time, editor David Wildstein recycles familiar talking points to discredit critics while omitting material context about past investigations, lawsuits, and settlements involving the city. The result is an article that downplays the public record, elevates political narrative over fact, and fails to provide readers with the balanced scrutiny expected of serious journalism.

Comical isn’t it?

Because Union City has not been “devoid of scandal.” It has been repeatedly touched by federal scrutiny, criminal cases tied to city operations, major litigation, and taxpayer-funded settlements — and Wildstein’s blanket “no scandal” line reads less like journalism and more like political PR.

The FBI raided Union City Hall—because of Union City

In November 2012, federal agents raided Union City Hall, with reporting tying the focus to the City’s Community Development Agency (CDA). 

That fact alone makes “devoid of scandal” an indefensible absolute.

The CDA wasn’t just “talk.” DOJ announced prison time for CDA corruption.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that a Union City Community Development Agency inspector was sentenced to 20 months in prison for conspiring with contractors to rig the contractor selection process.

Local reporting also described Union City reorganizing the CDA amid an FBI probe into an alleged contractor-selection scheme. 

If Wildstein wants readers to believe Union City’s record is spotless, he should explain why federal prosecutors were putting people tied to a city agency on the record for corruption crimes.

Union City has paid out major settlements tied to allegations involving Stack and city power

A “scandal-free” city does not repeatedly cut checks to resolve lawsuits alleging misconduct.

Union City paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a Homeland Security/ICE agent, with reporting describing allegations including abuse of power / illegal arrest claims.  Union City paid $67,000 to settle a wrongful arrest lawsuit brought by a former Newark police officer, according to local reporting. 

Settlements aren’t convictions — but they are not “nothing,” and they do not belong in a fairy tale about a government “devoid of scandal.”

The pay-to-play allegations Wildstein can’t erase: Union City police promotion lawsuits

If Wildstein truly believes Stack’s Union City is scandal-free, he should start by confronting the lawsuits filed by Union City police officers alleging a political patronage culture where career advancement depended on political loyalty and/or donations.

In 2015, Hudson County View reported that five Union City police officers sued Stack, alleging they had to contribute to the Brian P. Stack Civic Association to get promoted. 

Those were not vague rumors — the underlying complaints were publicly posted and describe a claimed “pay-to-play” environment:

Michael Figueroa v. Brian Stack (complaint PDF)  Mark Julve v. Brian Stack (complaint PDF)  Jorge A. Porres v. Brian Stack (complaint PDF; includes “pay-to-play” framing)  Joaquin Ruiz v. Brian Stack (complaint PDF) 

These cases later reached the appellate level. A published New Jersey court opinion (unpublished) references the consolidated matters and includes discussion of retaliation allegations tied to political association; it specifically identifies Figueroa among the plaintiffs. 

There was also litigation activity around donor information: reporting describes a motion seeking the civic association’s donor list, and a subsequent ruling requiring turnover of certain donor records. 

Wildstein can praise “ethics” all day. But you cannot responsibly tell readers Union City is scandal-free while the record contains multiple police promotion lawsuits alleging pay-to-play dynamics, court proceedings, and litigation over donor documentation. 

And there’s so much more!

And then there’s the messenger: David Wildstein’s credibility problem

Wildstein is not just a neutral editor offering a detached civic blessing. He is David Wildstein of Bridgegate — a central figure in one of New Jersey’s most notorious political scandals.

A DOJ release states Wildstein was sentenced to probation, 500 hours of community service, and ordered to pay restitution and a fine for his role in the scheme. 

And major coverage has documented his role and admissions in the Bridgegate affair.

That history doesn’t automatically invalidate every sentence he writes today — but it does make it especially rich when he lectures the public about “integrity” while trying to launder a political machine town as “devoid of scandal.”

The false “harassment” narrative and Wildstein’s abandonment of basic journalism

David Wildstein repeats Mayor Brian Stack’s claim that investigative journalists, Leroy Truth, is “harassing” him, but that framing collapses under even minimal legal scrutiny. What Wildstein pointedly ignores — despite holding himself out as a journalist — is that Leroy’s conduct fits squarely within constitutionally protected investigative journalism and political speech under the First Amendment. Stack’s attempts to rebrand scrutiny as “harassment” or “cyberbullying” were tested in court and did not hold up; the charges were dismissed because public officials cannot criminalize criticism or investigation simply because it is aggressive, persistent, or uncomfortable.

By parroting Stack’s talking points while omitting the constitutional reality and court outcomes, Wildstein demonstrates either a willful disregard for the law governing press freedoms or a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism itself — both of which undermine his credibility when lecturing readers about ethics and integrity.

The recycled “paid agitator” smear — and the proof Wildstein never provides

David Wildstein continues to recycle the same tired narrative favored by Brian Stack: that Leroy Truth is a “paid agitator” secretly backed by North Bergen Mayor, Nick Sacco. But after years of repetition, Wildstein still offers no evidence—no documents, no records, no verified reporting—to support that claim. Publicly available sources reflect political back-and-forth and litigation, not proof of payment; even coverage cited elsewhere includes Sacco’s own denial (e.g., InsiderNJ). Attempts to point to prior, disclosed payments to Leroy during a primary campaign do not prove Sacco funding anything; they show standard, reported compensation for social-media advertising, as reflected in filings with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. Conflating lawful campaign advertising with a secret paymaster is not reporting—it’s insinuation. If Wildstein or Stack have proof of Sacco paying Leroy, they should publish it. If they don’t, they should stop repeating the smear and, as journalists are taught early, take a seat until the facts are there.

The hypocrisy is the story

Wildstein wants the audience to accept two ideas at once:

Union City under Stack is “devoid of scandal.” The city needs a powerful new inspector general to guarantee ethics and efficiency.

Those can’t both be true. If Union City were truly scandal-free, there would be no FBI raid headline, no DOJ prison sentence tied to a city agency, no trail of settlements, and no string of police officer lawsuits alleging a culture of political retaliation and donation-linked advancement. 

Cybercrimes Unit Resources

David Malagold spent years in the Cybercrime Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, and in a city where Mayor Brian Stack has already unsuccessfully tried to weaponize “harassment” and “cyberbullying” claims against Leroy Truth, the concern is obvious and legitimate. Stack has repeatedly shown an appetite for reframing protected investigative journalism as criminal conduct, and the last thing Union City needs is a former cybercrime prosecutor being pulled—directly or indirectly—into that political vendetta.

Let’s be clear: using the language, resources, or implied authority of cybercrime enforcement to intimidate, chill, or retaliate against a journalist for exposing alleged corruption would be a blatant abuse of power and a First Amendment outrage. Stack’s history earns him no presumption of good faith.

The inspector general should take notice now: any move that even smells like cyber-based retaliation will put his office squarely on the radar of civil-rights advocates, media watchdogs, and activists who are more than prepared to hold him accountable.

A direct message to Union City’s new Inspector General

Union City’s newly announced inspector general is a former federal prosecutor. The City and the public are both going to invoke “ethics” and “integrity” now — and that’s exactly why this moment matters.

We are giving the inspector general the benefit of the doubt. But benefit of the doubt is not a blank check. The documented history surrounding Union City — including federal scrutiny, corruption convictions tied to city operations, settlements, and police “pay-to-play” promotion litigation — demands oversight that is real, public, and fearless. 

If this office becomes another layer of political insulation, people will notice. If the office confronts wrongdoing wherever it is found — without favor and without fear — residents will notice that too.