Some lowlights of tonight’s
meeting:
1) Tony Luna
admitted that the Lodi taxpayers paid
for Sirius radio in his vehicle.
He said it has been cancelled now.
Last month, he said he thought it was in a police vehicle.
2) Councilwoman
Licata said the town gave her son a
phone but she doesn’t know if its an i-Phone.
3) The council refuses to pass a Pay-to-Play
ordinance and blamed the State for it.
4) The auditor
acknowldeged the town was not
reporting automobile fringe benefits in employees compensation.
5) Marc Schrieks could not explain his “litigation”
excuse to go into closed session to discuss the auditor’s
recommendations. He said he “didn’t have
his notes in front of him”.
The following questions were asked during the
hearing of the citizens:
How many
i-phones are the taxpayers paying for and who has them?
Tony Luna said that I filled out an OPRA for that
information so they would find out. I
was surprised to hear that. I never
filled out and OPRA for that. I am glad
somebody else did.
Do any of you or your family members have them?
The council laughed like the question was a
joke. Nobody answered. But when Mrs. Licata was asked directly, she
said her son has a phone from the town but she doesn’t know if it is an
i-phone. Marc Schrieks was making a joke
of it and changed the subject. The
council refused to address this matter and moved on.
Mr. Luna, do you have Sirius radio in your Ford Explorer?
Mr. Luna stated that the Lodi taxpayers did pay for
his Sirius radio but it has been cancelled now.
Did Mr. Luna
receive a new contract yet? Will it be discussed in the open?
Alan Spiniello said they are negotiating it and it
won’t be discussed in the open.
We are
approaching a new year. Do any of you
have any intention on passing a real pay-to-play ordinance for the New Year? Why not?
This council refuses to pass a real pay-to-play
ordinance. They blamed the state for
Lodi not having a real ordinance despite the fact that the state recommends that
Lodi pass one every year when they hand them the “Best Practices” questionnaire. This council justifies not passing reform by
saying they are not doing anything illegal.
It was pointed out to them that the state comptroller’s office said
their ordinance is meaningless.
Mr. Schrieks, why wouldn’t you discuss the auditor’s recommendations at a public meeting? Which of the 4 recommendations dealt with “litigation”? That was the excuse you used for the closed session.
Marc couldn’t name any litigation. Alan Spiniello said it involved “personnel”. It was pointed out that Mr.Spiniello and Mr. Schrieks went into “closed session” because of “litigation”. It clearly did not involve “litigation”. The auditor’s recommendations appeared in a public notice shortly after the “closed session”. Those matters requiring a “closed session” disappeared awfully quickly.
You have not been in compliance with reporting automobile fringe benefits but you have been telling the state for at least two years that you have been when you fill out the “Best Practices” questionnaire.
The auditor said the questionnaire asked about
personal use and not automobile fringe benefits for commuting to and from work. I pointed out to the council that the
questionnaire asked about both.
(Click on the image above to see it better.)
