MUA HEADED FOR A LAWSUIT?
MUA Does Not Heed Warning About Conflict Of Interest Vote
The Mount Holly Municipal Utilities Authority [MUA] has avoided rate hikes these last two years while providing an essential service to its five adjacent municipalities and remitting $588,000 to the Township of Mount Holly in 2026. That revenue helps the Township fund things that might otherwise require tax hikes.
But as rosy as the operational side of the MUA is, its political side is experiencing turbulence. Lets start with the conflict-of-interest concern raised at the February 12, 2026 MUA meeting.
A warning was provided by Commissioner Jim Logan and later echoed by resident Jim Logue that a Board member should recuse from voting on an appointment or potentially invite a lawsuit for conflict of interest. Specifically, the vote of Commissioner Mark Fury was called out due to his receipt of a $500 payment from “The Burlington County Labor Voice” [a political action committee - PAC] that received $1,500 in contributions from the MUA Solicitor who Mr. Fury would later vote to appoint for 2026.
Commissioner Jim Logan warned that Commissioner Mark Fury should recuse himself from voting on the Solicitor appointment of Tom Colman because the State’s Conflict of Interest law requires public entities to avoid even the “appearance of a conflict”. Logan hastened to say he was not insinuating that anything illegal was afoot but in order to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the MUA, it would be best if Fury avoided this vote. Logan noted that his concern is not farfetched since Coleman’s office has already lost a Conflict of Interest lawsuit in Mount Holly. But Mr. Fury nevertheless voted for Mr. Coleman.
Afterwards, resident Jim Logue repeated the warning about potential litigation, stating that Mr. Fury could still rescind his Yes vote without changing the outcome of the appointment since Mr. Coleman only needed 3 votes but had 4.
Reached afterwards for comment, Mr. Fury said he felt that Logan and Logue had ambushed him with an issue that could have been discussed before the meeting. Fury also judged Logan’s logic to be dubious, claiming that people should not conflate a payment from the Burlington County Labor Voice PAC as being related to his vote for Coleman. He said that the payment was for band members in Fury’s jazz group which performed in a backyard event. Mr. Fury said that the guests at the event were and still are unknown to Coleman.
Concerns About Governance. Another issue of contention was the Commission vote to elect Rich DiFolco as Chair even though Mr. DiFolco’s term as a Commissioner had ended and Township Council rescinded its vote to re-appoint him. Readers should note that Council members Tara Astor and Kim Burkus objected to the re-appointment of Mr. DiFolco, and since DiFolco cannot vote to appoint himself, any further Council vote on his re-appointment would fail on a 2-2 tie vote. And so, with Mr. DiFolco serving as a “hold over” member until Council appoints a replacement, Mr. Logan cautioned that proper governance would dictate that the Chair should be a member that still has time on their appointment.
Reached for comment after the MUA meeting, Ms. Astor said that she and Ms. Burkus have repeatedly mentioned that several well qualified MUA applicants have been overlooked. And while they appreciated Deputy Mayor DiFolco’s 5 years of service to the Board, they believe its time to give someone else the opportunity to serve.
MUA Residency Requirement Resolved. Finally, the issue of whether Mr. Jason Jones should continue to serve as an MUA Commissioner was discussed. This issue revolved around Jones’ decision to move out of the MUA service area in December of 2025. At the January MUA meeting, Mr. DiFolco stated that he would ask for a resignation letter from Mr. Jones, but at Wednesday’s meeting Mr. DiFolco revealed that Mr. Jones was unwilling to resign.
Confusion regarding legal requirements for residency was resolved at the February 9, 2026 Mt. Holly Town Council Meeting. Township Clerk Sherry Marnell stated that there was a requirement for MUA Commissioners to live within the MUA townships. But Council member Burkus said she could not find that requirement in writing. And so, Ms. Burkus asked Town Solicitor Tom Coleman to state whether there was a legal residency requirement for Commissioners. Mr. Coleman noted that while the historic practice was to appoint Commissioners from the MUA service area, there is no legal requirement to do so.
What followed was a nearly inaudible discussion in which Mayor Banks agreed to have Solicitor Coleman draft a new ordinance for a first reading at the March Town Council meeting. That ordinance would require all future MUA Commissioners to reside within the MUA service area.
And so when Council member Tara Astor spoke during the public comment session of the February 12, 2026 MUA meeting, she was objecting to Mr. Jones’ continued service.
“I understand there is no current written ordinance mandating that a Commissioner must live within the MUA service area. But when Mr. Jones chose to move out of that area, I believe he also gave up his right to affect the lives of people who still live here.” Tara Astor.
