The legislative committee investigation into the hiring practices and procedures of the Murphy Administration appears to be nearing its conclusion, but the two overriding questions remain unanswered and it’s unlikely satisfactory and definitive responses will ever emerge.

First, the identity of the individual who authorized the appointment of Albert Alvarez to the chief of staff position at the Schools Development Authority remains a mystery.

Second, whose version of events of that night in April 2017 is the truthful account — Kate Brennan, a Murphy campaign staffer who charged Alvarez with sexual assault, or Alvarez who has insisted the interaction was consensual.

For three months, Administration witnesses denied hiring Alvarez to the $140,000 a year post and disclaimed any knowledge of who approved it.

Alvarez himself told the committee he didn’t know who hired him but came tantalizingly close to identifying then chief of staff Peter Cammarano as the person most likely to have done so.  Cammarano has steadfastly insisted he did not.

The most likely explanation is simply that Alvarez was hired by “the process,” a long-standing system which presumes that certain individuals stand to be rewarded for their campaign activities, financial support, or personal relationships.

Alvarez appointment resulted not from a positive act — even he said no one actually uttered the words “you’re hired” to him — but from a negative act — no one in authority raised any objections to his hiring.  It was assumed by all that he would receive an appointment at some significant level and a more formal process wasn’t necessary.

While such a seemingly casual procedure may offend some as poor business practice, following it is not uncommon in politics.

Having served in two transition offices  (Gov. Kean in 1982 and Gov. Whitman in 1994), I took part in meetings and discussions which frequently included some form of the phrase “We have to take care of (fill in the blank),” an acknowledgement that it was a given that, absent any serious objection, certain individuals would receive appointments in the incoming Administration.

Silence is equivalent to acquiescence, the paperwork is completed and no one need specifically order the hiring.  Alvarez apparently benefitted from this process as did all of those who were able to plausibly deny uttering “you’re hired.”

It was indeed “the process” that produced Alvarez’ appointment and, should the committee develop recommendations to establish a more orderly and stricter standard in the future, it could address it by requiring someone in authority to put pen to paper and authorize hirings.

When Alvarez appeared before the committee, it was agreed beforehand that the criminal allegations lodged against him by Brennan would not be subject to questioning.

Alvarez, however, raised the issue himself by reiterating his innocence and what he said was the consensual nature of the incident and pointing out that the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office declined to pursue the charges.

His testimony contradicted the account offered by Brennan who said he committed a sexual assault in her apartment following a campaign staff function.

Her testimony was compelling as she went step by step, first calling her husband who was out of the country, notifying law enforcement, undergoing a medical procedure, receiving comfort and aid from a friend, only to see it all come to  naught when the prosecutor’s office chose to end its investigation.

A later review conducted by the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office supported the Hudson County decision, finding that in the absence of any  corroboration of the charges and the lack of definitive DNA, the chances of moving forward and gaining a conviction were nil.

Brennan disputed the findings and criticized Alvarez’ version of events as a self-serving public relations ploy to support his contention of a consensual encounter.

While Brennan has filed a civil action against the governor, the campaign and Alvarez seeking
damages for emotional distress, it appears likely any further criminal proceedings have been foreclosed.

Should Brennan’s suit reach a courtroom, obviously additional details will emerge under oath, but if an out of court settlement is reached, it will more than likely be sealed and unanswered questions will remain.

Brennan, who was appointed chief of staff at the Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and who continues to serve in that position, was highly critical as well of the top staff in the governor’s office for failing to act decisively on her allegations against Alvarez.

She was frustrated and grew angry over what she perceived to be a failure on the Administration’s part to respond to her until she felt she had no choice but to air her complaints publicly in the pages of the Wall Street Journal in October of 2018.

It was only then that Alvarez resigned his position, despite being told in March that he should seek employment outside of state government.

As the committee begins to wind down its investigation, it is clear that the entire episode has reflected poorly indeed on the Murphy Administration, particularly his high-level staff who came across as unable to grasp the gravity of the situation or to act decisively to address it.  Evading blame or responsibility seemed to be at the core of the staff response as exemplified by the persistent “I didn’t hire Alvarez” mantra and the contention that its hands were tied in pursuing its own investigation of Brennan’s allegations.

Further criminal proceedings appear out of the question at this point and the sharply contradictory versions of events will remain unresolved, filed away under “he said, she said.”

Brennan feels she has been denied justice while Alvarez contends his life has been devastated and his career ruined by false accusations.

Unanswered questions will remain and eventually fade to memory, overtaken in interest and importance by other issues.  Media attention will be focused elsewhere and the scandal will —- like Bridgegate in the Chris Christie Administration — occupy its place in history, never fully forgotten but never fully erased either.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J., Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University.